2199:. Well, it seems like this discussion started off as a request to allow restoration of the article but then turned into a discussion about whether the AFD close was proper. There are a few more opinions advocating "overturn"/"relist" than "endorse"; moreover it appears that research during this deletion review has brought to light evidence of notability. There is also a discussion about whether notifying the deleting administrator before deletion review is necessary or just recommended, but it doesn't seem to make a difference for the determination here. It was not so clear however if "overturn", "relist" or "allow recreation" best capture the consensus here as the arguments are quite confusing. Ultimately, given that some of the notability arguments in favour of recreation apply to the draft and they are also pretty uncontested I'll go with restore the article from the draft; if someone thinks it's still not notable they can AFD it, and the old page history can be restored if appropriate.
2575:! Thanks for your detailed explanation! So, i understand that: the last two deletions (of articles that i created) where right according the Knowledge (XXG) rules. But, you think that a new version, quoting more references (specially the italian references) maybe can be listed as NPROF. Understanding that is a risk that i take because can be deleted for the editors again. If i'm right with this, then, i can talk with my classmates that speak italian to do a better article using all the references that we can found. What do you think? Thanks for your references, BTW. In this case, do you recommend start with a new article or do as i did in the past, creating a translation (but not a exactly translation of the french wiki that not meet the criteria of the english wiki)? Thanks again!!!!
1429:(ec) I closed this. The OP didn't discuss the close with me and it's not clear that they expect the outcome of any close to be significantly different. Instead they mainly seem to want the discussion closed by someone else for appearance's sake. But, as the close explains, the discussion has been open for plenty of time and so I suppose that others have considered closing it but found it to be too long and tiresome. I read through the discussion this morning and it seemed to show signs of turning into a battleground or train wreck â long tangents about the ethics of the matter were being written. As the topic in question is quite unimportant, it seemed sensible to encourage everyone to move on per
2542:
new version of this article. The new version of the article may still be nominated for deletion at AFD, and it might still be deletedâI don't know what the consensus of editors will be. But based on the additional sources, I think there's at least a possibility that someone can create a new version, and if it was nominated for deletion, the consensus of editors might be to keep it. This new version would have to be substantially different from the prior versionâmeaning different from the French version; not just a translation from the French. Ideally, it would have at least two but preferably three or more sources that met our
2504:); although few editors participated in it, they looked at the article and decided it didn't meet our notability guidelines, and so there was consensus to delete it. I think this deletion was correct under our policies. The editors may not have seen all the sources (especially in Italian), and so they may have made their decision based on incomplete information, but nevertheless, the administrator who deleted the article was following the editors' consensus in the AFD, which is what an administrator is supposed to do according to our policies. So, no error in the October deletion.
1582:. But I can't see a close that is different other than no consensus. And yeah, given the ARS complaints there (bogus or not), Andrew closing the discussion was not a good idea. Yes, it had been open for a long time (the relist came really slowly), but the relist was only 5-6 days before the close. It's not only important to be unbiased, it's also important to to have closures appear to be unbiased. I think reasonable people can feel this one didn't appear unbiased. So
3099:. So, I don't see it as a strict requirement. On the other hand, it's certainly a courtesy which shouldn't be ignored. I know I'd be annoyed if one of my closes were brought to DRV and nobody brought it to my attention. And, as a practical matter, it can often be a quicker path to resolving any problems, so it's a good idea. In my personal opinion, procedurally closing a DRV because of a failure to notify would be excessively bureaucratic. --
82:. Development of a draft is allowed although whoever approves such a draft should keep the concerns flagged here in mind. I see there is an additional discussion about whether deleting the history of the draft was the correct reading of the AFD consensus, but I don't think it's conclusive enough (only a few people commented on this point) to overturn the deletion. PS: I took the liberty of removing a piece of chit-chat from
1941:
was no consensus in that debate and the closer called it a "keep". Well, historically, I might have said "so what?" There was a time when "no consensus" was very similar to "keep". We treated them as just different flavours of not-delete. I think modern-day
Knowledge (XXG) is a different place, and nowadays I think "no consensus" is quite a different call from "keep". DRV does need to intervene here.
1356:(NB I !voted redirect in discussion). I have multiple problems with this: closure of a highly contentious discussion by a non-admin, closure by an arguably involved or at least closely linked editor, and using âkeepâ as a proxy for âno consensusâ. The two are in no way the same thing. The eventual outcome is probably going towards no consensus, but that decision should be made by an uninvolved admin.
3322:. One option might be to add a guideline to the DRV policy page that suggests where a DRV participant observes that the proposer hasn't first contacted the XfD closer, to let them know they can withdraw the DRV as "speedy keep" (although, as S Marshall and RoySmith noted previously when I wished to withdraw early a DRV nomination, there was no specific policy that permitted this so they had to use
2527:. G4 is for a page that has been deleted at an AFD, and then is recreated, and the new version is similar to the deleted version. That is what happened here in January. The page was recreated, again as a translation from the French version. It is basically the same as the version of the page that was deleted in October (because the October version was also translated from the French version). So,
3122:, but you're right, it's definitely slightly more than a personal courtesy to bring a close straight to DRV without first discussing because one could've potentially avoided a DRV. By the same token, you're right in that procedurally closing a DRV because the nom didn't notify the closer would just had a second procedural diversion, to have the nominator notify and then bring it back it to DRV.
2427:(recreated by the filer) with one additional reference and 3 new External links (a fourth was apparently a deadlink) was G4'd in January. Despite the new links, I think it was a proper G4. So I would endorse both the October AfD deletion and the January G4 deletion. However, of the sources I've posted here, it looks like only 3 were in the prior versions of the article, so I still think that it
2315:(Elements for a family philosophy) and "Introduzione alla biopolitica" (Introduction to biopolitics) this judgment was evident, but is not until 2007 where the thinking of professor D'Agostino was shocking whit the phrase "Gays are constitutionally sterile" when he was converted on the top of the hate of the LGBT community that fight for your rights
1831:
2380:
2609:) to be reviewed. Submitting it for AFC review is not required, but sometimes it can help to have an experienced reviewer take a look at the article and see if they agree that the new sources show D'Agostino is notable under GNG/NPROF. If it passes AFC, it can then be moved from the Draft space into the main article space (meaning, from
1437:. I have lots of experience of such fractious discussions and so am not surprised to find the participants rushing straight to DRV; that is quite common in such cases. But moving the discussion on to this next step seems sensible as a way of getting it resolved for now as I'm sure we all have more important things to do.
379:
options in its drop-down menu. XNXX: For when you want to watch porn on your mobile device, need a safe site, refuse to use a second browser or an incognito mode, and want a site with a name that doesnât sound like porn when it autofills your address bar. Thatâs not a great slogan, but it works for us.
2127:
There's a bit of interesting history here (correctly closed as keep back in
December by a NAC sockpuppet and then vacated and relisted by an administrator.) This hasn't been open for a full month, either, but rather two weeks of discussion over the course of a month. Reading through the discussion, I
1760:
the close, and leave for an administrator. As multiple editors have said, this has obviously been a contentious AFD, and so was a contentious close. I agree with the closer that it was time to stick a fork in it and say it was done, but the closer was the wrong editor to be sticking the fork in it,
909:
above, though don't want to discourage a new draft at AfC (which shouldn't be controversial because the page is currently salted.) However, the AfD was properly closed. Delete and redirect was a proper reading of consensus. I would write a new draft at AfC, and then once it's good to go and accepted,
454:
Internet registration records from
December 2006 show that y8.com and a hard-core sex site, xnxx.com, shared the same mailing address in France, plus the same email address. Later, the sites changed their contact information and no longer share the same addresses. On the website games.xnxx.com, which
447:
The
Journal found that many popular children's sites are run by small companies or mom-and-pops, and privacy practices vary widely. Among the sites studied, the Journal identified one, y8.comâfeaturing kids' games with names like "Crush the Castle 2" and "Dreamy Nails Makeover"âthat has had ties to a
277:
According to several website popularity rankings, we identified the two most popular pornographic video hosting platforms â XNXX and XHamster. We created a dedicated computer program to carry out the navigation and data collection tasks required to gather the metadata for all available videos on both
3387:, a reasonable practice. I've been !voting as "procedural close" as a personal practice in such respects in the past, but per RoySmith, S Marshall, and yourself, I think your approach is reasonable. Not sure if that'd be a reasonable argument on its own or if I'd need to couch such a future !vote in
3232:
I think that mis-states the goals. What we actually want is for the issue to be resolved with the amount of delay and process. A post on the closer's talk give the possibility of resolution within a few hours, whereas DRV takes a minimum of 7 days ... so a quick attempt to resolve it directly gives
3000:
We have two "delete" opinions, of which at least one makes a substantive and reasonable argument, and no "keep" opinions. That's enough for a "delete" consensus. I have no opinion as to whether the subject is notable on the merits. If he is, any user remains free to recreate the article in a version
2730:
Basically a slight variation on SmokeyJoe's opinion to create a new AfD given the fact the last one was a few months ago. If this is improper I'm fine with a relist. I can't tell if this is notable, but it deserves further discussion given the weak AfD and the potential it could be kept, and while I
2695:
would be to create the article from scratch rather than translating an article, especially since the article appears to be short. There has been a complicating factor that there have been articles about different people with the same name at different names. If the articles had existed at the same
2352:
was from
October, so it's potentially a stale issue. I don't see any problems with the way it was closed, despite the low participation. However, the sources I see in the nom, the French version, and from a quick Google search (spelled in sources as "Francisco D'Agostino" or "Francesco D'Agostino"),
1889:
I have zero faith in Andrew D's closure as one of the most prolific Keep-only voters; this was posted to ARS where he is a core user. His voting history does not seem to recognize multiple possible outcomes of AFDs, reflexively voting keep even when it is clear a page could be merged without loss of
493:
A huge swath of internet users like to look at porn in the privacy of their own home, but many probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about potential consequences of doing so over an insecure connection (that is, HTTP rather than HTTPS). Many adult sites are not only unencrypted by default, but
458:
The y8.com employee, Olivier G., didn't respond to questions about who owns the site or its apparent relationship with xnxx.com. He wrote in an email that y8.com is "strongly against the collection and use of personal information." He also said "we don't do anything" with email addresses provided by
1940:
I don't mind members of the ARS closing discussions. What I do object to is this idea that our anointed sysops are the only people who have sufficient maturity and good judgment to make the close calls. A little while at DRV will tell you that sysops screw it up as much as anyone else. But there
1586:
and let an uninvolved admin reclose. All that said, this never belonged at articles for deletion. It's a merge discussion which belongs on the article's talk page. There are no reasonable arguments for deletion here. This whole thing feels weird and as if it's a proxy battle for something else.
1192:
was vocally (and often negatively) addressed; the closer is an emphatic member of this group. For propriety's sake, at least, someone completely unassociated with the ARS should have closed a discussion in which the behaviour of the group had become an issue. The closer also lacks the experience to
570:
Because of the sheer volume of content, and some admirably conscientious efforts on the part of providers to cater to the widest possible array of user fetishes and tastes, the universe of
Internet porn is strictly organized into a system of discrete subsets with a regimentation any Cartesian would
378:
If for some reason you donât want to use a private browser option or any of the sites listed above, XNXX provides a tremendous mobile porn experience with a decidedly subtle name. This Flash-based site has free porn videos that load quickly, with easy search tags and sections in addition to all the
2553:
So, to summarize, I think the prior deletions were correct under policy, but I think it might be possible to make a new version that would not be deleted, if the new version had additional sources that showed that D'Agostino is notable under GNG/NPROF. I'm not sure if the sources I linked to above
2541:
is that the editors in the
October AFD did not look at all the sources that were available. For example, most of the sources I linked to above were not discussed at the October AFD, nor were they included in the October version of the article. So, I think it may be possible for someone to create a
1555:
If it's going to be a non-consensus close, it should at least be one that a) doesn't get basic facts like the length of time the AfD was open wrong, b) doesn't characterise people who didn't vote keep a "disruption", c) isn't worded in a way that biases any subsequent discussion against merging or
1509:
No evidence of COI. Could have been closed as "No consensus" but if that's all you're after, this is a waste of time. As closer noted, discussion of a possible merge can continue on the talk page, AfD is not the appropriate venue for that, and there was clearly consensus against outright deletion.
2759:
whose achievements largely predated the internet age. The outcome of the previous AfD is self-evidently a mistake caused by the fact that the name is relatively common and the search results are clouded by other people who've attracted more recent attention. There's nothing the matter with the
284:
The XNXX and
Xvideos domains are the oldest among the most popular porn platforms, dating from 1997. In July 2013 the websites claimed to host more than 3.5 million videos. We gathered information for 1,166,278 videos that were uploaded before March 2013. XNXX releases very little data about the
2046:
That's possible, S Marshall. There have been some good comments to help form a good stab at a RfC, so I'd like to let it bubble a bit more and see what comes up. (The RfC for Rivers wasn't successful, but it had ideas that were better on paper than in practice I think. It used statistical river
727:
The reason why this should not be redirected to XVideos is that I have provided sources that show this website itself has been subject to study therefore pass our GNG and warrants a separate article. Their is more than enough information to warrant a page. When a website becomes the top 50 most
3045:
or any other experienced editor or administrator, per
Sandstein's comments above, is it not a requirement that the XfD closer be notified of deletion review and, if so, can this not be procedurally closed for not notifying the closer? I'm just curious if it's a formal requirement or more of a
2314:
Now, about this subject, Mr. D'Agostino is one of the first lawyers that talks against the abortion and the gay marriage. For we, the laws students, is a refference in countries where we are starting to approve these laws. In his published books as "Elementos para una filosofĂa de la familia"
609:
Imagine that you are a 14-year-old today. A friend might show you a short porn clip on his phone during the bus ride to school or after soccer practice. A pornographic GIF appears on
Snapchat. Or you mistype the word âfishingâ and end up with a bunch of links to âfistingâ videos. Like most
3211:
We want people to have recourse to deletion review, and we want to minimize the amount of delay and process they need to go through in order to get here. Also, some newer users in this situation will perceive the discussion closer as a hostile authority figure, and may be put off or even
945:
This is a website site, not a corporation. This website is listed as one of the top 50 websites. When such an entity receives such achievements reliable secondary sources always exist. This an this has receive significant coverage from reliable secondary sources therefore passes WP:GNG.
2650:(Originally in Italy is Francesco, but in the biography in Spanish, French and English appears as Francisco) using the deleted translation as skeleton. We'll be improving the article in the next days and when we'll ready, we'll submit to review. Thanks to all and have a nice day!
2047:
related info that isn't always available to evaluate notability). It would help to get comments from people who think Bachelor Lake should be kept and what the criteria would be for it to be a "keep", for instance. But there's some great info that I don't remember reading before.â
2076:
outcome isn't outrageous--but it certainly isn't crystal clear. And I do think that in a discussion about if there was inappropriate canvasing in a certain group, it's probably not ideal for the closer to come from that group and agree with the outcome the group would want.
1335:- contentious closes shouldn't be done by non-admins, and certainly not by a member of a non-neutral voting bloc already involved in the discussion. Describing the merge/redirect arguments at the AfD as "disruption" reveals that the closer is nowhere near impartial here.
3186:
OTOH, if the prior discussion doesn't reach agreement, it's not wasteful. At best it clarifies the point(s) of disagreement, at worst, if it descends into acrimony, it's a pointer for DRV to consider how much to AGF. So I can see no reason not to try discussion first.
2601:, I'm not sure which spelling is correct or used most often by the sources). Whether you start with the French translation and expand it, or start "from scratch" with a completely new version as Robert suggests below, once you've created the draft, you can submit it to
343:
Mazières et al. analysed metadata for almost two million pornographic vidoes hosted on the aggreating sites XNXX and XHamster. They found that the rule of the 'long tail' applies to pornography as it does to other forms of content on the Internet (Mazières et al. 2014,
2452:! Thanks for your time. What do you mean with "it looks like only 3 were in the prior versions of the article, so I still think that it might be possible to recreate a version of this article that would survive a new AfD."? Sorry, i'm a newbie in the editors slang
1370:- it's asserted here that the closer demonstrated a conflict of interest, but I can't find any indication of that. They haven't edited the article, they haven't commented on the AfD, I'm not finding any other basis for this. Is there any thing to that accusation?
304:
XNXX has a bottom-up approach, letting uploaders choose their own words to index their videos, resulting in a list of more than 70,000 so-called âtagsâ. This system offers greater semantic variety to the viewers, facilitating the emergence of keywords and their
1528:
The issue here isn't so much the outcome, as the process. Earning a mop is not just a way to get a salary increase, it's getting buy-in from the community that they trust you to make the difficult decisions. If you want to be closing contentious AfDs, fine,
3262:
is fair; analysing and improving our deletion discussions; and monitoring for abuse of the discussion closure process. In the last ten years we've never identified an abusive sysop, but if abuse was taking place we'd be one of the best places to spot
2918:'s excellent closure record, which was actually one of the reasons why for my !vote. I've never seen any of Sandstein's closures to be even mildly problematic, though I do agree some of the opinions expressed in this AfD were weak. I also considered
1991:
if information about the subject can be put into a table, then there shouldn't be a separate article. I don't know how much discussion is needed and how to get folks to weigh in on the discussion that would be new to the Bachelor Lake notability
655:, but I read the AFD. If the appellant wants to create a draft, let them write a concise request to create a draft, but I am not optimistic that they know the right length for a draft, or for a request for permission to have a draft reviewed.
3367:, my understanding is that the contacting the closer is not required, but expected. My personal practice is to oppose review requests in which the closer was not contacted beforehand; others have legitimate reasons to take a different view.
1601:
This wasn't a regular relist, it was a nullification of an NAC close by a sockpuppet. In case you thought this wasn't already enough of a dumpster fire. It had been open only a week + five and a bit days in total, nowhere near a full month.
2485:.) That's a different question than "Should we have an article about this subject?" So it's possible that a particular version of an article was properly deleted, but nevertheless a new version of the article could be written that would
1943:
Vacating the close and getting an admin to re-close it is fatuous, ladies and gentlemen. If you've done enough thinking to know the close needs overturning, then you've done enough thinking to know what it needs to be overturned
1458:
acted in good faith, properly and fairly and accurately evaluated the situation, the discussion and the outcome. No change is likely to happen. It is apparent that the disgruntled participants in the discussion want a do-over.
1915:
188:, this is an unfortunate example of lack of research. This is website is notable, but editors here are often wary of pornography related website. If we are here to build an unbias Knowledge (XXG) we need to give equal coverage.
78:. It seems like the consensus is that the previous AFD closure is OK and that nobody has been convinced that the new evidence justifies restoring the page due to e.g concerns about duplication and whether the new sources satisfy
3182:
I see no downside to starting with a discussion with the closer. Sometimes it leads to agreement, as in the case of my discussion with Dmehus. That's a great result: everyone happy, without all the community time needed for a
1639:
1185:
1129:
2501:
2349:
2281:
412:
3) XNXX If you are more into literature and prose, this porn site has an entire section dedicated to real-life sex stories. XNXX also has a wide range of categories and pornographic images if you just want to take a quick
571:
admire. This site is for those who want to see only teens, that one for those who have a taste for older women (MILF, or âMoms Iâd Like to Fuckâ), and so on. Itâs all been tagged and taxonomied for ease of referral. (See
3257:
Then we disagree, because although I think this should be an easy venue to access, I don't feel that speedy resolution is the key goal. I feel that DRV is about achieving a fair process which a user with a grievance can
291:
By allowing uploaders to index their videos with numerous keywords, XNXX possesses a corpus of over 70,000 tags. Among the most common pornographic platforms, XNXX is the only one to have such a corpus of descriptive
1770:
raises a question about the need to clarify the notability guidelines for lakes. When should they be the subjects of articles, and when should they only be in lists? That is a good question that should be taken to
2696:
time, disambiguation would be used. Disambiguation may be necessary in the future; make a note to that effect on the talk page of the draft. As it is, I suggest that the author create a draft from scratch.
1765:
is a serious one that should not be made without evidence. It appears that the closer is known to be non-neutral, being a member of the Article Rescue Squadron, but that is not the same as a conflict of interest.
2330:
I kindly request you the revision of this deletion. I don't understand why this subject is not notable when for us, the law community, is. Maybe are not much popular to the english speaker people, but, for us yes.
632:" and is one of "two of the most important pornographic platforms offering a representative sample for studying online pornography" these sources give this website significant and extensive coverage which pass
1405:
I think it's clear what's going on here. Instead of the Squadron all turning up to vote keep, this is a new tactic where all but one of them turn up to vote keepkeepkeep and the last later closes it that way.
1043:
was entirely inappropriate. Because I can technically overturn a non-admin closure in my individual capacity as an administrator, it is not necessary to wait the full seven days for which DRVs normally run.
2784:
to non-consensus as an inadequate discussion, optional relist. But I think if is improved a little, it will be kept. The itWP has the fullest version at the moment, because it discusses the controversy.
1918:. Note that, in both cases, the AfDs were listed on the ARS rescue list. So, while I am quite willing to accept and suggest merger when appropriate, note that Reywas92 was one of the few who !voted to
746:
It should have been closed as either Merge, or Redirect, not delete and redirect. The arguments in the discussion supported not having a separate article, but did not support removing the contents.
1117:
1556:
redirecting, and d) doesn't set the precedent that the ARS can close AfDs however they like. I don't think this is too much to expect from an AfD close. It's a shame that you apparently disagree.
448:
pornography site, xnxx.com, according to Internet registration records. Y8 installed 69 tracking files on the Journal's test computer. It also asks users to provide an email address to register.
1721:
on what would make a lake notable (size, protected status, other)? In other words, if this is a "Keep" does it mean any lake, anywhere is notable as a natural feature? How can we get to a
2419:
Thanks, Wily! Looks like there were two recent deletions (of the Italian subject with this name, not counting the Venezuelan person with the same name who is not relevant to this DRV):
1138:
2554:
are enough to show D'Agostino is notable; however, someone else (especially someone who speaks Italian) might be able to find better sources than the ones I've found. Hope this helps!
168:
213:
Mazières, Antoine; Trachman, Mathieu; Cointet, Jean-Philippe; Coulmont, Baptiste; Prieur, Christophe (2014-03-21). "Deep tags: toward a quantitative analysis of online pornography".
1617:
1911:
3294:
occurring here in this quasi-related sidebar discussion. You both make excellent arguments, and I agree with you both. For clarity, I originally thought S Marshall meant that the
1167:
As the keep !voters have a slight majority and still seem to be digging up more sources, the status quo should remain so that they may work in peace without fear of disruption
2760:
article in French and no reason not to use it as the basis of the new article. Please don't list this at AfD, because that would be a ridiculous waste of volunteer time. â
2327:
Professor D'Agostino is usually a invited professor in the New York School of Laws. Has, at least, 6 published books in spanish and italian (The wiki has the ISBN of them)
3298:
is never to be a gatekeeper, which I agreed with completely. It's true that newbies might see, wrongly, a discussion closer as some sort of authority figure, and thinking
1987:
1838:
1803:
3046:
strongly advised common courtesy because I think, first course of action should be to ask the closer to reconsider their close and/or relist before listing at DRV, as
610:
14-year-olds, you havenât had sex, but youâre curious, so maybe you start searching and land on one of the many porn sites that work much like YouTube â XVideos.com,
1868:- Thank you for the explanation that you raised a concern. A concern about neutrality is very much in order, because the closer is not neutral, and a concern about
1264:; but considered that, since the discussion had aleady bled onto many other pagesâand considering the number of issues involvedâit would only delay the inevitable.
48:
34:
2136:, and I don't think any other closes are valid, as there's a clear and full consensus to keep this information somewhere. The problem is, this is a crystal clear
876:
come in to play, I err on the side of retaining the history. A history restoration and redirect, with the applicable Rcat for history merges, serve that purpose.
728:
viewed websites it will have notable articles giving it significant coverage. This website is far older than XVideos and has received similar levels of coverage.
2473:
I don't know if it's done the same way at the French wiki, but we have a very specific way of handling deletions and deletion reviews. Our deletion review page (
2311:
I see in the nominations that was a previous problem with another person with the same name. Maybe is any confusion? Looks like was clarified in the last posts.
2308:(exists in another languages two) and was deleted. i don't understand why is not notable a translation to english from an article notable on another languages.
2384:
However, I can't see the deleted version, so I don't know if these sources were all in the deleted version or not, or if there'd be consensus to keep at a new
43:
1087:
2269:
2969:. These are not the arguments on which an article should be deleted. I have no idea why this wasn't relisted. At most, this should have been closed as
2140:, and needs to be vacated so the participants in the discussion can respect the deletion procedure, even if there's no functional change in the outcome.
2372:
2316:
2405:
I've temp undeleted it so you (or whoever) can examine the sources. Note that two different guys have had bios there, so the history is a bit weird.
1311:
1272:
1229:
1209:
1775:, and the contentious nature of the AFD is evidence that the guideline needs clarifying. The issue here is the close, which should be undone.
1761:
and the close was the wrong close. The obvious close was No Consensus, but we don't need to close this AFD, only to unclose it. The allegation of
1083:
1031:
1616:
This is one of the biggest dumpster fire AFDs I've seen. I don't think active ARS members like Andrew D. should be closing contentious AFDs that
2368:
2290:
1176:(!!!)âon one of the most contentious AfDs we have seen in some time. (Discussion has spilt over from the AfD page to at least three talk pagesâ
3247:
3201:
830:
795:
2376:
1772:
476:
1189:
771:. The page has not been salted, so I do not see what is preventing the appellant from creating a significantly new version of the article.
39:
592:
2745:
2496:("articles for deletion") is the main method, where editors discuss whether a page should be deleted, and the decision is made based on
2154:
990:
924:
1688:
in this case, where there have been a lot of stops and starts. I think it really gets down to 1) should the article be merged into the
1530:
2602:
2550:), and the sources might show that one or more NPROF criteria are met. This is just my opinion; other editors might disagree with me.
536:
And if you go looking for it, you'll find an abundance of pro-bono smut on sites like Pornhub, Redtube, YouPorn, ApeTube, Spankwire,
455:
bills itself as offering "fun sex games," there is a prominent link at the top and bottom of the page to "non-adult" games on y8.com.
298:
As two of the most important pornographic platforms, XNXX and XHamster offer a representative sample for studying online pornography.
2996:, thanks for the ping. I didn't notice that this was one of my own closures. As I was not contacted prior to this review request, I
1398:
2470:, no problem! Sorry for my use of slang, I forgot to link to some of the terms I was using. Here's an explanation of what I meant:
1297:
who have both mis-cited me now: I did not accuse, assert (per Wiley) or allege (per RMcC) a CoI: quoting the guideline, I noted a
3274:
3223:
3159:
2771:
2025:
1963:
1910:
These allegations and aspersions are false. For example, here's a couple of recent AfDs in which I !voted to merge the content:
1649:
21:
2532:
2528:
2424:
2420:
1897:". He does not have community mandate to close AFDs, and this was certainly not a consensus to keep rather than no consensus.
2756:
325:
1318:
1279:
1236:
1216:
625:
3411:
3342:
3138:
3070:
2938:
2870:
1388:
892:
3462:
2219:
2170:
1695:, since it's basically statistical information in the article and perhaps any noteworthy information could be put in a
1067:
1010:
106:
17:
3431:
3306:
recourse (similar to a bank customer that complains to a banking regulator or consumer protection watchdog), so there
2647:
2610:
2594:
2370:
2317:
https://www.repubblica.it/2007/02/sezioni/politica/carfagna-luxuria/carfagna-luxuria/carfagna-luxuria.html?refresh_ce
2382:
2239:
3291:
2107:
1689:
1467:
156:
1990:
is that 1) because there are so many lakes in Minnesota and the world, 2) as a general notability criteria --: -->
3447:
3243:
3197:
2701:
2511:), which does not require an AFD discussion or consensus; instead, a single administrator can delete a page, but
2321:
D'Agostino is active member since 1994 of Pontifical Academy for Life, which members are designed from the Pope.
1927:
1877:
1780:
1442:
824:
789:
660:
2683:
if this is an appeal, but it appears to be a request to create another article about the subject. Thank you to
2598:
1865:
1304:
1265:
1222:
1202:
614:, BongaCams.com, all of them among the 100 most-frequented websites in the world, according to Alexa Top Sites.
1248:
Update: since Davidson is forcing the issue, and as other have pointed out, there was clearly no consensus to
3179:: A discussion with the closer is never a gatekeeper, because the complainant is still entitled to go to DRV.
2378:
1155:
the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial
263:
2737:
2374:
2204:
2146:
982:
916:
425:
91:
2970:
2910:, though it's not immediately clear which one as the one at the top of the page wasn't it. Nevertheless, I
430:
2052:
1997:
1846:
1811:
1744:
1730:
1633:
1627:
1607:
1257:
1181:
2497:
1434:
1303:
CoI based on the clear proximity of the closer to one particular side of the discussion. You're welcome.
873:
502:, Flirt4free (#5), NudeVista (#6), Cam4 (#7), Liveleak (#8), and G-e-hentai (#9) still have a ways to go.
3451:
3416:
3392:
3379:
3347:
3278:
3252:
3227:
3206:
3163:
3143:
3106:
3075:
3013:
2984:
2943:
2898:
2875:
2796:
2775:
2750:
2722:
2705:
2659:
2629:
2614:
2584:
2566:
2461:
2443:
2414:
2400:
2343:
2235:
2208:
2191:
2159:
2119:
2086:
2056:
2029:
2001:
1967:
1931:
1901:
1881:
1850:
1815:
1784:
1748:
1734:
1670:
1611:
1596:
1569:
1544:
1519:
1515:
1501:
1474:
1461:
1446:
1419:
1400:
1379:
1362:
1348:
1323:
1284:
1241:
1056:
995:
952:
929:
897:
840:
818:
805:
757:
734:
711:
686:
664:
642:
240:
177:
95:
3439:
2965:
was done. The only other comment was from an editor with limited experience who starts out by saying,
1894:
1487:
1430:
3430:
The discussion was inadequate to establish a consensus to delete. As the topic is being revisited as
3443:
3287:
3270:
3234:
3219:
3188:
3155:
3047:
2767:
2697:
2639:
2021:
1959:
1923:
1922:
the page in question. That position was an extremist outlier and any closer would have rejected it.
1873:
1872:
was worth considering. It doesn't change the result, which is that the close should be overturned.
1776:
1455:
1438:
1290:
1040:
861:
836:
801:
675:
656:
318:
86:
where someone was talking about their preferred porn(?) before closing this, hope nobody minds this.
3092:
1201:), if any discussion was a candidate for administrator (possibly a multiple of) close, it was this.
3054:
close. BHG, feel free to chime in as well as you also always have excellent insight and expertise.
2718:
2115:
698:
I see nothing about XNXX that couldn't be mentioned at XVideos as one of its subsidiaries. In fact
267:
2962:
2822:
2482:
2137:
1483:
1158:
1146:
547:
3103:
2981:
2895:
2732:
2692:
2688:
2651:
2624:
2590:
2576:
2561:
2535:, and the October version was deleted after an AFD. So, no error in the January deletion, either.
2467:
2453:
2438:
2395:
2335:
2200:
2141:
1665:
1541:
1498:
1177:
977:
940:
911:
587:
87:
2731:
think creating a draft is fine I don't see any reason why we can't take a shortcut on this one.
2547:
2354:
1486:, for multiple reasons. Close decision, editorializing in the closing statement, and arguably,
1197:. Notwithstanding the fact that the discussion was still ongoing at the time of close also (yet
965:
906:
519:
2977:
usually does excellent work, but I'm afraid this one wasn't up to his usual high standard. --
498:âuse SSL. Those three sites are LiveJasmin, Chaturbate, and Adult Friend Finder. YouPorn (#3),
2713:. Very light participation, and weakish nomination & !vote. Someone has more to say. --
2048:
1993:
1842:
1807:
1767:
1740:
1726:
1702:
1603:
322:
2891:
are you sure about the relist? This looks like it was open for the standard seven days. --
1579:
969:
865:
774:
652:
312:
3403:
3334:
3130:
3062:
2930:
2862:
2655:
2580:
2457:
2339:
1511:
884:
784:
I only warn that it better be pretty good and completely different to prevent any chance of
552:
228:
3388:
3299:
3051:
2907:
2831:
2606:
2543:
2520:
2508:
2493:
2474:
2385:
2358:
1891:
1869:
1762:
1491:
973:
869:
633:
79:
3283:
3264:
3213:
3174:
3149:
3036:
2919:
2761:
2409:
2082:
2015:
1953:
1592:
1374:
707:
471:
256:
3435:
2524:
785:
3384:
3370:
3032:
3004:
2974:
2915:
2714:
2301:
I'm here to request you a review about the deletion of the page "Francisco D'Agostino"
2111:
1563:
1413:
1342:
1047:
2922:'s comments above in not wanting to see this end up at AfD, hence my "weak relist." --
3113:
3100:
3028:
2993:
2978:
2903:
2892:
2839:
2792:
2684:
2635:
2620:
2572:
2557:
2449:
2434:
2391:
1898:
1661:
1538:
1495:
1357:
753:
514:
395:
390:
356:
494:
don't even offer the option. In fact, only three of the top 10 adult sitesâbased on
3323:
2322:
1652:(the sockpuppet account was blocked); post-relist, there was a ton of participation
815:
495:
215:
361:
232:
3396:
3364:
3327:
3319:
3170:
3123:
3086:
3055:
2923:
2886:
2855:
2431:
be possible to recreate a version of this article that would survive a new AfD.
959:
947:
877:
729:
681:
637:
2072:
I do think the keeps have a pretty darn strong argument. Strong enough that a
2643:
2406:
2366:
2364:
2362:
2078:
1588:
1371:
1294:
722:
703:
1708:
and 2) keep the article - perhaps because of its size, protected status, or
1557:
1407:
1336:
224:
126:
83:
1494:. This should be backed out and left for a neutral admin to re-close. --
972:(a business that runs over the web.) But in either case, I'm not convinced
680:
this isn't a request for overturning it is a request for allow recreation.
2531:
was properly deleted under the G4 CSD criteria, because it was similar to
2110:, though not a consensus. There is a clear consensus to not "delete". --
264:
http://sexualitics.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/PORNSTUDIES_preprint.pdf
3040:
2787:
976:
is met with those sources, and would prefer to see a draft of the topic.
857:
748:
582:
509:
466:
385:
351:
2755:
This gentleman is an emeritus full professor and head of department at
2304:
This is a page that i translated two times from Knowledge (XXG) France
699:
868:, I trust those two editor(s)/administrator(s)' analysis and whenever
3148:
We don't want the discussion closer to be the gatekeeper for a DRV.â
1537:) I'd want to see this close voided even if it was by an admin. --
2546:. We also have a notability guideline specifically for professors (
2305:
1642:
by an ARS member for redirecting the article after a keep consensus
2106:...". There was vociferous support for merge and/or redirect to
1717:
Am the only one that thinks that there should be a little clearer
1684:: I see Levivich's point that would have been better for an admin
1256:
a keep close in that discussion. Also, for the record, I did, per
2957:. There was almost no useful discussion. The nom simply said,
2489:
be deleted. I think this is the situation here for this article.
1712:
other reason that people have found that makes the lake notable.
268:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/23268743.2014.888214
197:
122:
70:
1151:
the non-admin has demonstrated a potential conflict of interest
1645:
At the ANI, it was discovered that the closer was a sockpuppet
3395:
or not, but I think it's a very reasonable approach to take.
1535:
keep !voters ... may work in peace without fear of disruption
1620:. For those unaware, the history of this particular AFD is:
1252:
the article. But it is mildly worrying that a closer could
420:
2816:
be merit to keeping this article if it's improved, so I'd
2593:. I would suggest creating it as a draft (create the page
1739:
minor edits are underlined (foggy brain today, it seems).â
1193:
close such a discussion; I note eleven XfD closures since
3097:
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer
2961:, with nothing beyond that. Not even an indication that
2361:; they're all fairly brief mentions or non-independent).
1262:
Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer
3310:
valid reasons to go straight to DRV. That being said, I
2477:) is specifically for answering the question, "Did this
2334:
Thanks for read this and i'll be looking your comments.
1587:
Is there some off-site discussion somewhere about this?
1174:
the discussion indicates that deletion is quite unlikely
964:
I personally don't see all that much difference between
467:"Porn Sites Should Be Using This Basic Security Feature"
3314:
also agree wholeheartedly with BrownHairedGirl that to
2906:
You're right; I think I got this confused with another
2276:
2262:
2254:
2246:
1194:
1124:
1110:
1102:
1094:
811:
777:
that were not mentioned in the old version or the AfD,
773:
If you believe you have located enough sources to pass
163:
149:
141:
133:
2481:
comply with our policies?" (Our deletion policy is at
1199:
it's time to stick a fork in it and say that it's done
510:"Who Actually Pays for Porn Anymore? An Investigation"
196:
sources showing extensive and significant coverage of
3001:
that addresses the reasons for which it was deleted.
1804:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability (geographic features)
1802:
I will open the issue of notability for lakes at the
2423:
was deleted at the above-referenced AfD in October.
1387:
If there were a textbook bad close, it is this one.
2500:. The article on D'Agostino was at AFD in October (
1793:
Your points regarding the closure make sense to me.
788:. In fact, don't even look at the old version. ---
1165:.The closer made effectively what was a supervoteâ
2507:The second deletion method is "speedy deletion" (
1186:a massive (and massively contentious) AN/I thread
636:, therefore I am asking for an allow recreation.
2323:http://www.academyforlife.va/content/pav/it.html
814:to me, albeit as a redirect rather than empty. â
352:"The best free porn sites when you're on the go"
262:There is a preprint of the article available at
2306:https://fr.wikipedia.org/Francisco_D%27Agostino
1533:. But, given the editorializing in the close (
314:Pornography: Structures, Agency and Performance
2104:keep, without prejudice to a merge or redirect
583:"What Teenagers Are Learning From Online Porn"
421:"On the Web, Children Face Intensive Tracking"
266:. The published article is under a paywall at
3318:first contact the closer results in needless
2134:keep, without prejudice to merge and redirect
1578:eh. Any admin could back out this close per
386:"The 20 best free porn sites on the internet"
8:
3118:Thanks for clarifying. I guess I missed the
2804:as a valid close. Participation was light,
2218:The following is an archived debate of the
1066:The following is an archived debate of the
651:the close as a valid close. The appeal is
105:The following is an archived debate of the
2184:
1655:Jan 8 â Closed by Andrew D as "keep" again
1024:
191:
63:
2846:was fairly light. So, I guess, this is a
1188:. In the course of which the role of the
823:That is embarrassing. You are right. ---
2914:agree completely with your comments re:
278:websites without downloading any videos.
2132:is the most correct close, followed by
1988:the WP Notability (geographic features)
1890:content per his classic recitation of "
1084:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)
1039:There is consensus that the closure by
1032:Bachelor Lake (Brown County, Minnesota)
910:request the page to be unsalted again.
311:Sullivan, Rebecca; McKee, Alan (2015).
2966:
2958:
2854:, if that's possible and makes sense.
2830:of the article and have it go through
1299:
1261:
1198:
1173:
1166:
1162:
1154:
1150:
252:
248:
238:
1163:Never close a discussion to supervote
7:
2492:We have two basic deletion methods:
3465:of the page listed in the heading.
2687:for explaining the complexities to
2173:of the page listed in the heading.
1773:the geographic notability talk page
1013:of the page listed in the heading.
1149:, points 1 & 2: in this case,
28:
3050:did with me with my one and only
1634:redirected and merged the article
1618:are listed on the ARS rescue list
782:create a draft and submit to AfC.
546:Strausbaugh, John (Summer 2004).
350:Bond, John-Michael (2017-10-20).
3442:details of the earlier version.
1829:
1632:Jan 1 â After deletion, the nom
1628:Closed as "keep" by a sockpuppet
3461:The above is an archive of the
2169:The above is an archive of the
1009:The above is an archive of the
508:Spitznagel, Eric (2014-08-14).
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
2757:University of Rome Tor Vergata
1725:of what makes a lake notable?â
1623:Dec 6 â Nominated for deletion
1531:we have a process for that too
905:I do not see coverage passing
548:"R.U.R. or R.U. Ain't My Baby"
419:Stecklow, Steve (2010-09-17).
1:
1650:AFD was unclosed and relisted
3452:11:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
3417:17:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
3380:17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
3348:17:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
3279:10:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
3253:17:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
3228:15:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
3207:14:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
3164:20:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
3144:18:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
3107:18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
3076:18:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
3014:07:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
2985:01:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
2944:18:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
2899:02:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
2876:03:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
2834:. I'm hesitant to support a
2797:01:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
2209:10:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
2014:You could list it as a RfC?â
1658:Jan 8 â Brought here to DRV
1221:12:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
996:14:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
953:13:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
930:07:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
898:19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
841:19:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
819:16:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
806:16:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
758:01:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
735:03:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
581:Jones, Maggie (2018-02-07).
394:. 2017-02-22. Archived from
233:10.1080/23268743.2014.888214
96:10:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
2776:16:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
2751:00:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
2723:22:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2706:19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2660:20:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2630:19:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2585:18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2567:17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2544:general notability criteria
2523:. One of those criteria is
2462:16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2444:16:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2415:07:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2401:07:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2344:02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2160:01:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
2120:22:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2087:22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2057:23:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2030:23:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
2002:22:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1968:21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1932:01:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
1902:19:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1882:19:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1851:19:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1816:19:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1785:19:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1749:19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1735:18:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1671:18:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1612:17:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1597:17:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1570:18:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1545:17:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1520:17:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1502:15:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1475:14:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1447:14:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1420:14:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1401:14:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1380:14:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1363:13:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1349:13:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1324:19:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1285:14:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1242:12:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
1057:11:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
712:23:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
687:23:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
665:22:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
643:20:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
540:, KeezMovies, Xtube, et al.
465:Grauer, Yael (2017-01-01).
3488:
3432:Draft:Francisco D'Agostino
3233:the fastest resolution. --
2648:Draft:Francisco D'Agostino
2611:Draft:Francisco D'Agostino
2599:Draft:Francesco D'Agostino
2595:Draft:Francisco D'Agostino
2108:List of lakes of Minnesota
1986:So far, the discussion at
1690:List of lakes of Minnesota
1190:WP:Article Rescue Squadron
630:oldest pornography website
624:This website is among the
1037:Non-admin closure undone.
76:Endorse but allow a draft
3468:Please do not modify it.
2842:notes below, the actual
2603:WP:Articles for Creation
2597:, or maybe it should be
2388:based on these sources.
2225:Please do not modify it.
2176:Please do not modify it.
2102:..." to "The result was
1950:Overturn to no consensus
1866:User:Serial Number 54129
1073:Please do not modify it.
1016:Please do not modify it.
968:(a strict standard) and
112:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
2998:endorse my own closure.
2967:my research was cursory
2728:Restore and send to AfD
2634:A lot of thanks to you
626:50 most viewed websites
426:The Wall Street Journal
2515:if the page meets the
616:
577:
542:
504:
461:
415:
381:
346:
307:
3393:professional courtesy
2098:from "The result was
607:
568:
534:
491:
445:
410:
376:
341:
319:John Wiley & Sons
275:
2640:User:Robert McClenon
2615:Francisco D'Agostino
2589:Happy I could help,
2236:Francisco D'Agostino
2192:Francisco D'Agostino
1763:conflict of interest
1638:Jan 2 â The nom was
1490:as a participant in
1291:User:Robert McClenon
653:too long, didnt read
3434:, I suggest that a
2539:My personal opinion
2533:the October version
2529:the January version
2425:A recreated version
2222:of the page above.
1912:Super-chicken Model
1070:of the page above.
702:should be updated.
605:The article notes:
566:The article notes:
532:The article notes:
489:The article notes:
443:The article notes:
408:The article notes:
374:The article notes:
273:The article notes:
109:of the page above.
2197:Restore from draft
1171:even in the future
1145:This is a classic
864:, though this was
628:and is the among "
588:The New York Times
3475:
3474:
3378:
3326:to handle it). --
3290:, some wonderful
3277:
3251:
3226:
3205:
3162:
3012:
2774:
2183:
2182:
2028:
1966:
1768:User:CaroleHenson
1289:Further update @
1055:
1023:
1022:
812:sure looks salted
621:
620:
3479:
3470:
3414:
3406:
3377:
3375:
3368:
3345:
3337:
3292:WP:WIKIDIPLOMACY
3269:
3242:
3240:
3238:
3218:
3196:
3194:
3192:
3178:
3154:
3141:
3133:
3117:
3093:the instructions
3090:
3073:
3065:
3044:
3011:
3009:
3002:
2941:
2933:
2890:
2873:
2865:
2766:
2748:
2740:
2691:. My advice to
2646:. I started the
2628:
2627:
2565:
2564:
2442:
2441:
2412:
2399:
2398:
2298:Hi to everyone!
2293:
2288:
2279:
2265:
2257:
2249:
2227:
2185:
2178:
2157:
2149:
2020:
1958:
1837:
1833:
1832:
1707:
1701:
1686:to close the AfD
1669:
1668:
1473:
1463:7&6=thirteen
1396:
1391:
1377:
1321:
1316:
1309:
1282:
1277:
1270:
1239:
1234:
1227:
1219:
1214:
1207:
1141:
1136:
1127:
1113:
1105:
1097:
1075:
1054:
1052:
1045:
1025:
1018:
993:
985:
963:
944:
927:
919:
895:
887:
833:
827:
798:
792:
769:allow recreation
726:
679:
603:
601:
600:
591:. Archived from
575:for an example.)
564:
562:
561:
553:Cabinet Magazine
530:
528:
527:
518:. Archived from
487:
485:
484:
475:. Archived from
441:
439:
438:
429:. Archived from
406:
404:
403:
372:
370:
369:
360:. Archived from
339:The book notes:
337:
335:
334:
285:videos it hosts.
260:
254:
250:
246:
244:
236:
192:
186:Allow recreation
180:
175:
166:
152:
144:
136:
114:
64:
53:
33:
3487:
3486:
3482:
3481:
3480:
3478:
3477:
3476:
3466:
3463:deletion review
3410:
3402:
3371:
3369:
3341:
3333:
3288:BrownHairedGirl
3236:
3235:
3190:
3189:
3168:
3137:
3129:
3111:
3084:
3069:
3061:
3048:BrownHairedGirl
3026:
3005:
3003:
2937:
2929:
2884:
2869:
2861:
2744:
2736:
2698:Robert McClenon
2623:
2618:
2560:
2555:
2437:
2432:
2410:
2394:
2389:
2289:
2287:
2284:
2275:
2274:
2268:
2261:
2260:
2253:
2252:
2245:
2244:
2223:
2220:deletion review
2174:
2171:deletion review
2153:
2145:
1874:Robert McClenon
1830:
1828:
1777:Robert McClenon
1705:
1699:
1664:
1659:
1568:
1460:
1456:Andrew Davidson
1418:
1392:
1389:
1375:
1347:
1319:
1312:
1305:
1280:
1273:
1266:
1237:
1230:
1223:
1217:
1210:
1203:
1137:
1135:
1132:
1123:
1122:
1116:
1109:
1108:
1101:
1100:
1093:
1092:
1071:
1068:deletion review
1048:
1046:
1041:Andrew Davidson
1014:
1011:deletion review
989:
981:
957:
938:
923:
915:
891:
883:
862:Coffeeandcrumbs
850:Restore history
837:Coffeeandcrumbs
831:
825:
802:Coffeeandcrumbs
796:
790:
779:go right ahead.
763:Restore history
744:Restore history
720:
676:Robert McClenon
673:
657:Robert McClenon
622:
598:
596:
580:
559:
557:
545:
525:
523:
507:
482:
480:
464:
436:
434:
418:
401:
399:
384:
367:
365:
349:
332:
330:
328:
310:
247:
237:
212:
200:
176:
174:
171:
162:
161:
155:
148:
147:
140:
139:
132:
131:
110:
107:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3485:
3483:
3473:
3472:
3457:
3456:
3455:
3454:
3424:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3362:
3361:
3360:
3359:
3358:
3357:
3356:
3355:
3354:
3353:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3281:
3184:
3180:
3079:
3078:
3019:
3018:
3017:
3016:
2988:
2987:
2959:fails WP:NPROF
2951:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2946:
2879:
2878:
2828:draftification
2799:
2778:
2753:
2725:
2708:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2551:
2536:
2505:
2490:
2353:might support
2296:
2295:
2285:
2272:
2266:
2258:
2250:
2242:
2230:
2229:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2181:
2180:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2122:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1972:
1971:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1916:Animal attacks
1905:
1904:
1884:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1788:
1787:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1714:
1713:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1656:
1653:
1646:
1643:
1636:
1630:
1624:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1562:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1523:
1522:
1504:
1477:
1449:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1412:
1382:
1365:
1354:Revert bad NAC
1351:
1341:
1333:vacate bad NAC
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1287:
1182:CaroleHenson's
1144:
1143:
1133:
1120:
1114:
1106:
1098:
1090:
1078:
1077:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1021:
1020:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
933:
932:
900:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
760:
740:
739:
738:
737:
715:
714:
692:
691:
690:
689:
668:
667:
619:
618:
617:
578:
543:
505:
496:Alexa rankings
462:
416:
382:
347:
326:
308:
210:
209:
208:
202:
201:
195:
190:
183:
182:
172:
159:
153:
145:
137:
129:
117:
116:
101:
100:
99:
98:
61:
59:8 January 2020
56:
49:2020 January 9
47:
38:
35:2020 January 7
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3484:
3471:
3469:
3464:
3459:
3458:
3453:
3449:
3445:
3441:
3437:
3436:history merge
3433:
3429:
3426:
3425:
3418:
3415:
3413:
3407:
3405:
3400:
3399:
3394:
3390:
3386:
3383:
3382:
3381:
3376:
3374:
3366:
3363:
3349:
3346:
3344:
3338:
3336:
3331:
3330:
3325:
3321:
3317:
3313:
3309:
3305:
3301:
3297:
3293:
3289:
3285:
3282:
3280:
3276:
3272:
3268:
3267:
3261:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3249:
3245:
3241:
3231:
3230:
3229:
3225:
3221:
3217:
3216:
3212:intimidated.â
3210:
3209:
3208:
3203:
3199:
3195:
3185:
3181:
3176:
3172:
3167:
3166:
3165:
3161:
3157:
3153:
3152:
3147:
3146:
3145:
3142:
3140:
3134:
3132:
3127:
3126:
3121:
3115:
3110:
3109:
3108:
3105:
3102:
3098:
3094:
3088:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
3077:
3074:
3072:
3066:
3064:
3059:
3058:
3053:
3049:
3042:
3038:
3034:
3030:
3024:
3021:
3020:
3015:
3010:
3008:
2999:
2995:
2992:
2991:
2990:
2989:
2986:
2983:
2980:
2976:
2972:
2971:WP:SOFTDELETE
2968:
2964:
2960:
2956:
2953:
2952:
2945:
2942:
2940:
2934:
2932:
2927:
2926:
2921:
2917:
2913:
2909:
2905:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2897:
2894:
2888:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2880:
2877:
2874:
2872:
2866:
2864:
2859:
2858:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2829:
2825:
2824:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2809:
2803:
2800:
2798:
2794:
2790:
2789:
2783:
2779:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2764:
2758:
2754:
2752:
2749:
2747:
2741:
2739:
2734:
2733:SportingFlyer
2729:
2726:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2709:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2694:
2690:
2686:
2685:User:Levivich
2682:
2679:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2649:
2645:
2641:
2637:
2636:User:Levivich
2633:
2632:
2631:
2626:
2622:
2616:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2600:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2587:
2586:
2582:
2578:
2574:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2563:
2559:
2552:
2549:
2545:
2540:
2537:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2517:very specific
2514:
2510:
2506:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2472:
2471:
2469:
2465:
2464:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2446:
2445:
2440:
2436:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2413:
2408:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2397:
2393:
2387:
2383:
2381:
2379:
2377:
2375:
2373:
2371:
2369:
2367:
2365:
2363:
2360:
2356:
2351:
2348:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2332:
2328:
2325:
2324:
2319:
2318:
2312:
2309:
2307:
2302:
2299:
2292:
2283:
2278:
2271:
2264:
2256:
2248:
2241:
2237:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2228:
2226:
2221:
2216:
2215:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2201:Jo-Jo Eumerus
2198:
2194:
2193:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2179:
2177:
2172:
2167:
2166:
2161:
2158:
2156:
2150:
2148:
2143:
2142:SportingFlyer
2139:
2135:
2131:
2126:
2123:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2094:
2093:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2075:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1989:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1977:Great points.
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1951:
1947:
1939:
1938:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1903:
1900:
1896:
1893:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1860:
1859:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1769:
1764:
1759:
1756:
1755:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1704:
1698:
1694:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1680:
1672:
1667:
1663:
1657:
1654:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1637:
1635:
1631:
1629:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1619:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1571:
1567:
1566:
1561:
1560:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1546:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1508:
1505:
1503:
1500:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1482:. Clearly a
1481:
1478:
1476:
1471:
1470:
1465:
1464:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1411:
1410:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1395:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1366:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1340:
1339:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1325:
1322:
1317:
1315:
1310:
1308:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1278:
1276:
1271:
1269:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1235:
1233:
1228:
1226:
1220:
1215:
1213:
1208:
1206:
1200:
1196:
1195:May last year
1191:
1187:
1184:and mineâand
1183:
1179:
1175:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1140:
1131:
1126:
1119:
1112:
1104:
1096:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1063:
1058:
1053:
1051:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1019:
1017:
1012:
1007:
1006:
997:
994:
992:
986:
984:
979:
978:SportingFlyer
975:
971:
967:
961:
956:
955:
954:
951:
950:
942:
941:SportingFlyer
937:
936:
935:
934:
931:
928:
926:
920:
918:
913:
912:SportingFlyer
908:
904:
901:
899:
896:
894:
888:
886:
881:
880:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
848:
842:
838:
834:
828:
822:
821:
820:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
803:
799:
793:
787:
783:
780:
776:
772:
770:
764:
761:
759:
755:
751:
750:
745:
742:
741:
736:
733:
732:
724:
719:
718:
717:
716:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
694:
693:
688:
685:
684:
677:
672:
671:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
647:
646:
645:
644:
641:
640:
635:
631:
627:
615:
613:
606:
595:on 2018-06-04
594:
590:
589:
584:
579:
576:
574:
567:
555:
554:
549:
544:
541:
539:
533:
522:on 2018-06-04
521:
517:
516:
511:
506:
503:
501:
497:
490:
479:on 2018-06-04
478:
474:
473:
468:
463:
460:
456:
452:
449:
444:
433:on 2018-06-04
432:
428:
427:
422:
417:
414:
409:
398:on 2018-06-04
397:
393:
392:
391:The Daily Dot
387:
383:
380:
375:
364:on 2018-06-04
363:
359:
358:
357:The Daily Dot
353:
348:
345:
340:
329:
324:
320:
317:. Cambridge:
316:
315:
309:
306:
305:combinations.
302:
299:
296:
293:
289:
286:
282:
279:
274:
271:
269:
265:
258:
249:|access-date=
242:
234:
230:
226:
222:
218:
217:
211:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
194:
193:
189:
187:
179:
170:
165:
158:
151:
143:
135:
128:
124:
121:
120:
119:
118:
115:
113:
108:
103:
102:
97:
93:
89:
88:Jo-Jo Eumerus
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
3467:
3460:
3427:
3409:
3401:
3397:
3372:
3340:
3332:
3328:
3324:common sense
3315:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3295:
3265:
3259:
3214:
3150:
3136:
3128:
3124:
3119:
3096:
3068:
3060:
3056:
3022:
3006:
2997:
2954:
2936:
2928:
2924:
2911:
2868:
2860:
2856:
2851:
2848:weak endorse
2847:
2843:
2835:
2827:
2821:
2817:
2813:
2807:
2805:
2802:Weak endorse
2801:
2786:
2781:
2762:
2743:
2735:
2727:
2710:
2680:
2538:
2519:criteria at
2516:
2512:
2486:
2478:
2428:
2421:this version
2333:
2329:
2326:
2320:
2313:
2310:
2303:
2300:
2297:
2224:
2217:
2196:
2190:
2175:
2168:
2152:
2144:
2133:
2129:
2124:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2073:
2049:CaroleHenson
2016:
1994:CaroleHenson
1954:
1949:
1945:
1942:
1919:
1886:
1861:
1843:CaroleHenson
1834:
1808:CaroleHenson
1757:
1741:CaroleHenson
1727:CaroleHenson
1722:
1718:
1709:
1696:
1692:
1685:
1681:
1648:Jan 2 â The
1640:taken to ANI
1604:Reyk roaming
1583:
1564:
1558:
1534:
1506:
1479:
1468:
1462:
1451:
1435:WP:LIGHTBULB
1426:
1414:
1408:
1393:
1384:
1367:
1358:
1353:
1343:
1337:
1332:
1313:
1306:
1298:
1274:
1267:
1253:
1249:
1231:
1224:
1211:
1204:
1170:
1157:. Also note
1072:
1065:
1049:
1036:
1030:
1015:
1008:
988:
980:
948:
922:
914:
902:
890:
882:
878:
874:WP:HISTMERGE
853:
849:
781:
778:
768:
766:
762:
747:
743:
730:
695:
682:
648:
638:
629:
623:
611:
608:
604:
597:. Retrieved
593:the original
586:
572:
569:
565:
558:. Retrieved
551:
537:
535:
531:
524:. Retrieved
520:the original
515:Men's Health
513:
499:
492:
488:
481:. Retrieved
477:the original
470:
457:
453:
450:
446:
442:
435:. Retrieved
431:the original
424:
411:
407:
400:. Retrieved
396:the original
389:
377:
373:
366:. Retrieved
362:the original
355:
342:
338:
331:. Retrieved
313:
303:
300:
297:
294:
290:
287:
283:
280:
276:
272:
261:
241:cite journal
220:
216:Porn Studies
214:
185:
184:
111:
104:
75:
69:
58:
44:2020 January
3438:be done to
3320:bureaucracy
3091:it says in
2852:weak relist
2693:User:Inhigo
2689:User:Inhigo
2071:<ec: -->
1895:WP:PRESERVE
1512:Smartyllama
1488:WP:INVOLVED
1431:WP:NOTFORUM
3398:Doug Mehus
3373:Sandstein
3329:Doug Mehus
3296:DRV closer
3284:S Marshall
3266:SÂ Marshall
3239:HairedGirl
3215:SÂ Marshall
3193:HairedGirl
3175:S Marshall
3151:SÂ Marshall
3125:Doug Mehus
3057:Doug Mehus
3037:S Marshall
3007:Sandstein
2925:Doug Mehus
2920:S Marshall
2857:Doug Mehus
2844:discussion
2823:undeletion
2763:SÂ Marshall
2644:User:WilyD
2017:SÂ Marshall
1992:question.â
1955:SÂ Marshall
1480:Void close
1295:User:WilyD
1178:Levivich's
1050:Sandstein
879:Doug Mehus
599:2018-06-04
560:2018-06-04
526:2018-06-04
483:2018-06-04
437:2018-06-04
402:2018-06-04
368:2018-06-04
333:2018-06-04
327:0745694845
3385:Sandstein
3033:Sandstein
2975:Sandstein
2963:WP:BEFORE
2916:Sandstein
2838:, but as
2810:relisted.
2715:SmokeyJoe
2498:consensus
2483:WP:DELPOL
2138:WP:BADNAC
2112:SmokeyJoe
1697:note in a
1626:Dec 14 â
1484:WP:BADNAC
1454:close.
1300:potential
1159:WP:NACPIT
1147:WP:BADNAC
500:XNXX (#4)
292:keywords.
251:requires
227:: 80â95.
225:Routledge
84:Talk:XNXX
3440:preserve
3428:Overturn
3248:contribs
3202:contribs
3120:consider
3114:RoySmith
3101:RoySmith
3029:RoySmith
3023:Question
2994:RoySmith
2979:RoySmith
2904:RoySmith
2893:RoySmith
2840:RoySmith
2782:Overturn
2548:WP:NPROF
2479:deletion
2357:(if not
2355:WP:NPROF
2096:Overturn
1899:Reywas92
1758:Overturn
1723:guidance
1719:guidance
1703:notelist
1682:Question
1584:void NAC
1539:RoySmith
1496:RoySmith
1368:Question
966:WP:NCORP
907:WP:NCORP
854:redirect
765:per DGG
612:Xnxx.com
573:xnxx.com
556:. No. 14
20: |
3302:is the
3039:, and
2818:support
2806:but it
2681:Endorse
2350:The AfD
2291:restore
2255:history
1862:Comment
1693:article
1580:WP:NACD
1507:Endorse
1427:Comment
1258:WP:REVD
1139:restore
1103:history
970:WP:NWEB
903:Endorse
866:WP:TLDR
816:Cryptic
775:WP:NWEB
700:XVideos
696:Endorse
649:Endorse
223:(1â2).
178:restore
142:history
3444:Andrew
3389:WP:IAR
3365:Dmehus
3300:WP:DRV
3244:(talk)
3198:(talk)
3171:Dmehus
3104:(talk)
3087:Dmehus
2982:(talk)
2955:Relist
2896:(talk)
2887:Dmehus
2836:relist
2826:&
2812:There
2711:Relist
2652:Inhigo
2607:WP:AFC
2591:Inhigo
2577:Inhigo
2521:WP:CSD
2509:WP:CSD
2494:WP:AFD
2475:WP:DRV
2468:Inhigo
2454:Inhigo
2386:WP:AfD
2359:WP:GNG
2336:Inhigo
2128:think
2125:Vacate
1924:Andrew
1920:delete
1892:WP:ATD
1887:Vacate
1806:page.â
1542:(talk)
1499:(talk)
1492:WP:ARS
1452:Affirm
1439:Andrew
1385:Vacate
974:WP:GNG
960:Valoem
949:Valoem
870:WP:ATT
731:Valoem
683:Valoem
639:Valoem
634:WP:GNG
459:users.
80:WP:GNG
3237:Brown
3191:Brown
2793:talk
2621:Leviv
2573:Leviv
2558:Leviv
2525:WP:G4
2450:Leviv
2435:Leviv
2429:might
2392:Leviv
2277:watch
2270:links
2079:Hobit
1662:Leviv
1589:Hobit
1320:54129
1281:54129
1238:54129
1218:54129
1125:watch
1118:links
829:&
794:&
786:WP:G4
754:talk
723:Buffs
704:Buffs
413:peek.
253:|url=
164:watch
157:links
52:: -->
16:<
3448:talk
3304:only
3286:and
3263:it.â
3183:DRV.
3173:and
3025:for
2719:talk
2702:talk
2656:talk
2642:and
2581:talk
2513:only
2502:link
2458:talk
2407:Wily
2340:talk
2263:logs
2247:edit
2240:talk
2205:talk
2130:keep
2116:talk
2100:keep
2083:talk
2074:keep
2053:talk
1998:talk
1928:talk
1878:talk
1847:talk
1839:here
1835:Done
1812:talk
1781:talk
1745:talk
1731:talk
1608:talk
1593:talk
1559:Reyk
1516:talk
1443:talk
1433:and
1409:Reyk
1372:Wily
1338:Reyk
1293:and
1250:keep
1169:and
1161:#4:
1153:and
1111:logs
1095:edit
1088:talk
860:and
856:per
852:and
767:and
708:talk
661:talk
538:XNXX
472:Vice
344:87).
323:ISBN
257:help
198:XNXX
150:logs
134:edit
127:talk
123:XNXX
92:talk
71:XNXX
32:<
3446:đ(
3391:or
3316:not
3308:are
3260:see
3246:⢠(
3200:⢠(
3052:MfD
3041:DGG
2908:DRV
2832:AfC
2820:an
2814:may
2808:was
2788:DGG
2625:ich
2617:).
2613:to
2571:Hi
2562:ich
2487:not
2466:Hi
2448:Hi
2439:ich
2396:ich
2282:XfD
2280:) (
1948:.
1926:đ(
1870:COI
1864:to
1666:ich
1565:YO!
1441:đ(
1415:YO!
1394:WBG
1359:Hug
1344:YO!
1254:see
1130:XfD
1128:) (
872:or
858:DGG
810:...
749:DGG
451:...
301:...
295:...
288:...
281:...
229:doi
169:XfD
167:) (
22:Log
3450:)
3312:do
3187:--
3095:,
3035:,
3031:,
2973:,
2912:do
2795:)
2721:)
2704:)
2658:)
2638:,
2619:â
2583:)
2556:â
2460:)
2433:â
2390:â
2342:)
2207:)
2195:â
2118:)
2085:)
2055:)
2000:)
1952:.â
1946:to
1930:)
1914:;
1880:)
1849:)
1841:.â
1814:)
1783:)
1747:)
1733:)
1710:an
1706:}}
1700:{{
1660:â
1610:)
1595:)
1518:)
1445:)
1314:SN
1307:ââ
1275:SN
1268:ââ
1260:,
1232:SN
1225:ââ
1212:SN
1205:ââ
1180:,
1035:â
839:)
804:)
756:)
710:)
663:)
585:.
550:.
512:.
469:.
423:.
388:.
354:.
321:.
245::
243:}}
239:{{
219:.
94:)
74:â
42::
3412:C
3408:¡
3404:T
3343:C
3339:¡
3335:T
3275:C
3273:/
3271:T
3250:)
3224:C
3222:/
3220:T
3204:)
3177::
3169:@
3160:C
3158:/
3156:T
3139:C
3135:¡
3131:T
3116::
3112:@
3089::
3085:@
3071:C
3067:¡
3063:T
3043::
3027:@
2939:C
2935:¡
2931:T
2889::
2885:@
2871:C
2867:¡
2863:T
2850:/
2791:(
2780:'
2772:C
2770:/
2768:T
2746:C
2742:¡
2738:T
2717:(
2700:(
2654:(
2605:(
2579:(
2456:(
2411:D
2338:(
2294:)
2286:|
2273:|
2267:|
2259:|
2251:|
2243:|
2238:(
2203:(
2155:C
2151:¡
2147:T
2114:(
2081:(
2051:(
2026:C
2024:/
2022:T
1996:(
1964:C
1962:/
1960:T
1876:(
1845:(
1810:(
1779:(
1743:(
1729:(
1606:(
1591:(
1514:(
1472:)
1469:â
1466:(
1390:âŻ
1376:D
1142:)
1134:|
1121:|
1115:|
1107:|
1099:|
1091:|
1086:(
991:C
987:¡
983:T
962::
958:@
943::
939:@
925:C
921:¡
917:T
893:C
889:¡
885:T
835:(
832:C
826:C
800:(
797:C
791:C
752:(
725::
721:@
706:(
678::
674:@
659:(
602:.
563:.
529:.
486:.
440:.
405:.
371:.
336:.
270:.
259:)
255:(
235:.
231::
221:1
181:)
173:|
160:|
154:|
146:|
138:|
130:|
125:(
90:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.