624:
redirect. If someone !votes "redirect" and it's closed as "delete" and the closer doesn't say anything about redirect, does that mean recreating as a redirect is permitted or prohibited? Hard to say, need to read the discussion to really get it. Not all closers will remember to specifically say that a redirect is permitted or prohibited. Hence, we shouldn't delete such recreated redirects on a speedy basis; instead, if someone thinks an article was inappropriately created as a redirect, the thing to do is to RFD it, where editors can examine the AFD and determine if a redirect does or doesn't have consensus. G4 is narrow and specific by design, just like all the other CSD criteria.
328:. I read a consensus to delete, not redirect, with the vast majority !voting for that or approving that. Also, Knowledge should not be entrenching controversial political phases as redirects that will give positive feedback to external search algorithms. The existence of the redirect causes the internal search engine to be bypassed by default. No redirect gives a far superior result, as multiple pages may better match, now and in the future.
421:. Looking at the debate itself, it seems fairly clear that the prevailing consensus was to remove the content and redirect. Like SmokeyJoe I probably wouldn't vote that way myself, I'd just delete outright. But a case for notability was made in the discussion and I didn't participate, so from an independent perspective that was the outcome. Re suggestions that the G4 was wrong, that's just preposterous.
1773:
the AfD, just in another forum. Which is what your trying to do by making us analysis sources post AfD close. More so because the hiest and if it was enough on it's own to make them notable was already discussed in the AfD. Just because you have another source about it, that people already looked over, doesn't mean or change anything, or make what your doing any less relitigation. --
1610:
existence (or that was looked over) needs be listed in an AfD for the outcome be valid. Also, the close of the AfD, which is what AfD reviews are for, was perfectly valid based on the consensus. So, there's zero grounds to do another AFD about it or do anything else related to it either. Except for keeping it deleted. --
1540:. With a clear AfD less than six months ago, it is not OK to just re-create straight into mainspace. This DRV was ill-advised, as the AfD process was done correctly. Here at DRV we will review the sources more actively, if AfC refuse to mainspace it on submission, and if the notability evidence is not excessively long. —
259:
if the question is whether to allow a redirect. Either overturn the close from Delete to Delete and
Redirect, or overturn the G4 because a redirect is not substantially the same as the deleted article. If what is being requested is restoring the redirect, then overturn something to permit it to be
196:
the topic was covered at the proposed redirect target. Only 5 endorsed deletion and made no further argument. I feel that upon wholesome analysis of the comments in the discussion, "the result was delete" is an incomplete reading, and that today's creation of a redirect in its place does not qualify
2004:
the discussion as a delete. Based on the argument, I don't have an issue if the DRV nominator wants to create a brand new draft using the articles above (which I have not reviewed) but given the discussion was clear and our ongoing difficulty with crypto-spam I don't think this should be a straight
1772:
On my end no, because I don't think a deletion review is the place to relitigate AfDs in that way or to analyze sources. "new" or otherwise. Like me (and other people) have already said, a deletion review is to determine if the AfD was closed properly or not based on the consensus. Not to continue
1492:
These are almost all articles with the name of the company in the title. Pointing out that there are metric ton of sources is useful given that we use sources as our method of deciding to keep an article or not. I agree it would be best if the nom listed the best few sources, but I think knowing
274:
That does not make sense. If the AFD is closed as delete with no redirect, then you can't immediately rock up and recreate the redirect anyway, because it's "not substantially the same". What would be the point of debating the merits of delete vs redirect then? That's a clear G4 whichever way you
1609:
deletion if I'm allowed to do that (if not then this just a comment. Since I was pinged). The good majority of sources that Ҥ mind read weren't reviewed were around before the AfD and were considered, at least by me. As stated by
Ysangkok most (or all of them) are garbage and not every source in
711:
with the goal to redirect without deleting - and was closed as deletion instead. The standard for whether G4 applies to a recreation that's not byte-for-byte identical to a previous version is whether the changes would have been enough to materially affect the outcome of the afd, and "#REDIRECT
425:
explicitly note delete and redirect as separate outcomes for the close, which means if it's delete it's delete. You can't then recreate the redirect anyway. The substantially identical clause is met because the closer said explicitly no to a redirect, and recreating that redirect therefore means
2032:
I suggest the OP try to write a new draft if they want to show the subject is suitable for an article. I can't support restoring the previous one for them to work on because when that was done before the OP moved it straight back to mainspace with essentially no changes (they added one external
289:
I realize you want G4 to stretch to that. And I can see why. But as written, it clearly doesn't. And in my opinion, it shouldn't. We have a place to discuss redirects. The people that frequent that venue tend to be more knowledgeable about our redirect policies than those that frequent AfD.
623:
G4 doesn't apply to articles recreated as redirects after an AFD: because whether it's OK to redirect or not OK to redirect is a judgment call that should not be made on a speedy basis. People will often disagree as to whether a particular AFD discussion did or did not prohibit recreation as a
1647:
Sorry, but the world doesn't revolve around you and that's not how AfDs work. If you don't like it cool, but it's not my problem. Feel free to take your ridiculous assertion about it to whatever forum serves as the place to discuss changing AfD policy though, but this isn't the place for it.
529:
It's appalling and abhorrent that
American people who have brown skin get targeted in this way. Trump talks in an unfiltered stream of consciousness, and the media hangs off his every word; I think we, as Western society, and we, as Wikipedians, both pay far too much attention to his random
1507:
For commercial topics, it is hard work to judge whether the sources are independent. You have to analyse the writing style, look into the history of the author, and look for links between the company and the publisher. An objective story next to advertising for the product, and I deem it
1444:
OK, I'm seeing one bit of coverage, in the same vein as previous coverage, since the AfD. The G4 is fine. That said, I think the coverage is way over what is needed for an article. Maybe it should be an event article on the "heist" or something. But that's plenty of coverage.
1881:
says "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." So even if you think it's not an "in-depth analysis", how does it otherwise fail? Like why isn't it an
1263:. It is unreasonable (you imply it is reasonable when you complain that there was "no indication that they knew about them") to expect a deletion debate to list every single source that can be found. The deletion debate had an outcome that still stands, since the rules of
192:. I'm not challenging the article's deletion - there was very clear consensus that the article should be removed, however out of 20 bolded !votes, 4 explicitly endorsed redirection, and 9 more either were of the form "delete and redirect as proposed" or endorsed deletion
530:
blitherings. He'll say something completely different tomorrow. I honestly think it would be best to ignore the whole thing; but good faith editors disagree and they have an arguable case, so I rather grudgingly suppose I'd come down on the "allow redirect" side here.—
360:
I think, if the AfD was closed with a calling of consensus to not have a redirect, then G4 serves as the mechanism to enforce the decision. I think that call was not clear, and so the redirect should go to RfD, on second look. At RfD, I would !vote to delete as above.
514:
If you go straight to the redlink, via bookmark or clicking on it now, you get the fairly usefully informative deletion log that links to the AfDs, the later of which will link to this discussion. That will be far more useful than a redirect to but one relevant page.
550:
I'm not certain that most people would want to delve into the deletion discussions? Useful for regular editors, but I'm pretty sure (though I'm honestly not positive) that most folks would find that fairly hard to understand and get useful information out of.
761:– Original "delete" closure endorsed. This discussion has no consensus for an immediate recreation based on the coverage submitted here, but several editors suggest creating a new draft from scratch, which would then probably need community scrutiny (e.g.
382:
A decision to delete an article does not prohibit the subsequent creation of a redirect. I'm not even sure that an AfD could legitimately close with a decision to delete and not allow a redirect Anyone objecting to the redirect should proceed via RfD.
1585:
to cover
Cryptopia as well as Mt. Gox. Once that's done we could have a redirect instead of a redlink in this space. Cryptocurrency articles have such a shitty history on Knowledge that I'd advocate pre-emptive, indefinite full protection of the
1715:"Cryptopia could have been one of New Zealand's most successful hi-tech start-ups. Its end was caused by one of the country's biggest heists worth $ 24 million. SAM SHERWOOD and MARTIN VAN BEYNEN follow the twisted path to the company's collapse."
1296:"Cryptopia could have been one of New Zealand's most successful hi-tech start-ups. Its end was caused by one of the country's biggest heists worth $ 24 million. SAM SHERWOOD and MARTIN VAN BEYNEN follow the twisted path to the company's collapse."
1632:
that they knew about or considered them." Claiming you knew about them before I brought them up at deletion review doesn't change anything for me. I think they should be considered in text at AfD, not just inside your mind which I can't read.
1813:
Sure, except you've failed to find any sources, new or otherwise, that are "qualifying." Just asking people's opinions repeatedly about the same sources that were already looked at for the AfD and have been rejected repeatedly doesn't count.
1839:. All the coverage is after the fact reporting, re: what is happening at the liquidation company. There is no new in-depth analysis to support undeletion. Several of them seem to be the same story, indicating a press-release as the source.
1225:
I moved it days later, not immediately. I admit that I did not make significant improvements, only minor. But I am not disputing the deletion on those grounds ("excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version").
1130:- The statement that 'The reasoning to delete is now invalid' is unpleasant and isn't the most collaborative way to get an article approved. Is the appellant trying to insult the closer, or is the appellant only forgetting to be civil?
706:
I'm going to buck the trend here and say the G4 was perfectly reasonable. Yes, most of the time it's incorrect to G4 a redirect based on an afd. Here, though, the afd explicitly considered whether to redirect, at length - it was even
163:
1675:. That remains the case and per SmokeyJoe the above links don't show enduring notability, NCORP or even GNG (they are not in depth secondary coverage, but rather news articles tangential to the subject). Keep in draft, find the
867:
Nominator wrote: "This seems like a Non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. All the coverage of it the article is extremely trivial, for instance a bank closing their account, and I wasn't able to find anything that would pass
585:. A redirect is not substantially identical to a substantive article. G4 does not authorize deletion by administrative fiat merely because an admin believes they can accurately predict the outcome of a deletion discussion.
720:
afd to forbid the redirect. Even most of the participants bolding "Delete" say that the subject is already covered at the redirect target. So endorse the G4, overturn the afd, and my apologies for the policy-wonking.
151:
1873:
2) About 1,300 out of 2,500 total words are about the the company before the hack from counting everything after "The
Hobbyists" to before "The Hack". Is that accurate? If not, what would be more accurate to
2041:
imposes strict criteria on sourcing for articles about organisations. The fact that we've had a lot of promotion for cryptocurrency-related subjects here does mean increased scrutiny on articles about them.
690:
a Delete closure at AfD doesn't usually preclude a redirect, it just means the article should be deleted. The title can still be redirected afterwards. A redirect is not substantially similar to an article.
402:- G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies", so it doesn't seem applicable in this case.
1219:
Also asked "So I can add significant details of the liquidation / bankruptcy proceedings to the article. Would you agree that the article won't be worthy of speedy deletion if I improve it based off all
1210:
They're not asking for a draft, or at least not honestly if so. They asked Tony to undelete and draftify it, and when he did, they immediately moved it into mainspace (where it was promptly G4ed). —
1073:
I did not participate in the AfD. The reasoning to delete is now invalid because I have shown how it does meet the guideline. The article should be restored and require a new AfD in order to delete.
172:
1478:. The criteria for inclusion, once you understand them, are very low, it takes only two qualifying sources. If you can’t do it with three, give up. Don’t waste our time with reference bombing. —
422:
218:
My G4 deletion was based on Tone closing the AfD as delete and not mentioning the possibility of redirect. There were votes to redirect, but that was not the closing admin's decision. –
1173:
The appellant could have said "no longer applies" rather than saying "is now invalid", which is insulting. But perhaps we should not expect courtesy when dealing with cryptocurrency.
1799:
If the nominator claimed that he "wasn't able to find anything that would pass WP:NCORP in a before", then that no longer applies if any qualifying sources can later be identified.
1522:
Sure, but in this case, they are almost all pretty uniformly negative. Maybe someone is pulling strings somewhere in the coverage, but it seems unlikely to be the company.
236:
correct given the close but maybe not taking the whole situation into account, but that's really a side point to whether the close was entirely accurate in the first place.
1536:
Sure indeed. My gut feel is that this topic has a good chance of getting back into mainspace, and the best and most efficient route is via draftspace and the advice at
1053:
669:- the combination of a sloppily-worded close and a context-insensitive G4 deletion have clearly thwarted the consensus of the deletion discussion. Someone needs to
1758:"the above links don't show enduring notability, NCORP or even GNG (they are not in depth secondary coverage, but rather news articles tangential to the subject)"
117:
70:
48:
34:
1259:
the original closing decision. Those news items are just reporting on court orders and press releases, they do not contain original research as required by
716:" plainly doesn't for an afd that discussed that specific redirect target and was closed as "delete, don't redirect".That said, I don't see a consensus in
1041:
43:
1982:
deletion. The references posted above are routine announcements , that startup creates using the branding and advertising budget, and clearly fail the
850:
1885:
4) I don't think any of the sources I linked to at the start of this deletion review are the same story. Which ones do you think are the same story?
960:
929:
1671:
per SmokeyJoe and
Adamant1. The deletion nom was based on poor sourcing in the article at the time, but also a failure to find sources to satisfy
893:
1012:
1722:
Quoting participants and requesting if they or anyone else can expand on their reasoning, with regard to just this one source I've highlighted.
565:
Going straight to the redlink only gives you the deletion log if you're logged in. (Or, I seem to recall, very shortly after the deletion.) —
941:
1407:
An inexperienced IP user probably would not be able to impact the outcome of this deletion review, so doesn't matter if they are notified.
970:
1325:
2019:
656:
587:
The Big Bad
Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong!
121:
980:
1867:
1704:
1287:
1002:
39:
1309:
1597:
951:
886:
541:
474:
242:
207:
875:
From that guideline: "Examples of substantial coverage" include "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization."
838:
590:
1734:"Those news items are just reporting on court orders and press releases, they do not contain original research as required by
426:
creating something that was rejected. Until and unless the close itself if overturned, the redirect should remain deleted. —
1344:
So I only listed sources after the initial May 2019 liquidation news and did not include ones that are about the same thing.
917:
628:
21:
1196:
if that is what the appellant is asking, but reviewers, like closers, are likely to be cautious about cryptocurrency.
2033:
link). The fact that the subject has news coverage doesn't necessarily mean they are suitable for an article, because
1467:
713:
1934:, all articles discussed in Deletion Review have already been deleted. The purpose of the discussion is explained at
1581:
There's probably not enough there for a standalone article, but I do think there's enough about the breach to expand
1150:
3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;"
885:
The following sources were not in the article and there's no indication that they knew about or considered them. See
1063:
1031:
1022:
992:
905:
1474:, and cryptocurrencies are given very little leeway. Allow drafting, and advise proponents to follow the advice at
859:
586:
2063:
1935:
1435:
1201:
1178:
1135:
1096:
788:
736:
346:
That's fine, but are you claiming a redirect is a recreation of the original article? If not, how does G4 apply?
265:
101:
17:
1790:"Deletion review may be used: if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;"
2011:
1582:
648:
232:"Not mentioning the possibility of redirect" is basically what I think should be reviewed. G4 was probably
910:
678:
2052:
2024:
1996:
1964:
1947:
1918:
1894:
1849:
1823:
1808:
1782:
1767:
1688:
1657:
1642:
1619:
1601:
1576:
1549:
1531:
1517:
1502:
1487:
1458:
1439:
1416:
1396:
1382:
1353:
1276:
1244:
1235:
1214:
1205:
1182:
1168:
1139:
1118:
1100:
1082:
777:
725:
701:
682:
661:
634:
611:
594:
569:
560:
545:
524:
509:
495:
478:
452:
435:
413:
394:
370:
355:
341:
320:
299:
284:
269:
247:
227:
212:
90:
1978:
I might not have been clear in my comment as I had quick review of the instructions, but I absolutely
1449:
The sources listed above were not really discussed in the very limited AfD that resulted in deletion.
1593:
1431:
1197:
1174:
1131:
1092:
607:
537:
470:
408:
261:
808:
491:, sight-likely-unseen, are a little more plausible. Also, blah blah internal search hinting blah. —
1878:
1545:
1513:
1483:
520:
448:
366:
337:
184:
already declined, and a recreation of the originally proposed redirect today was speedy deleted by
500:
Also, if someone bookmarked this article, they at least will now get more than a "no page" error.
2006:
1943:
1819:
1778:
1653:
1615:
1392:
1313:
1272:
643:
631:
223:
1281:
I don't think any of it is from press releases. I don't see how this one could be, for example:
804:
757:
602:- G4 specifically "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"
180:
Belatedly requesting a review of the close of this deletion discussion; deleting administrator
2034:
1960:
1914:
1684:
1508:
non-independent. Let the onus for making the choice of best sources lie with the proponent. —
1401:
1240:
Time elapsed between first post-restoration edit and the move into mainspace was 51 minutes. —
985:
674:
431:
280:
1565:
This is not the place to reconsider the details. It needs instead another discussion at AfD.
1989:
1886:
1861:
1842:
1800:
1759:
1735:
1634:
1408:
1345:
1264:
1260:
1227:
1160:
1110:
1074:
1983:
1676:
1672:
1587:
1537:
1527:
1498:
1493:
that there is this much (almost all negative) coverage is useful to the decision process.
1475:
1454:
922:
869:
670:
603:
556:
531:
505:
464:
403:
351:
316:
295:
237:
202:
906:
Cryptopia cofounder stands by new venture, says failed company was 'like Game of
Thrones'
2038:
1890:
1804:
1763:
1638:
1541:
1509:
1479:
1471:
1427:
1412:
1349:
1231:
1164:
1114:
1078:
898:
768:
516:
444:
362:
333:
81:
1939:
1815:
1774:
1743:
1729:
1649:
1611:
1572:
1388:
1366:
1268:
762:
625:
443:, to be clear, are you !voting for undeletion of the article behind the redirect? --
390:
219:
185:
2045:
1956:
1929:
1910:
1793:
1753:
1680:
1374:
1241:
1211:
1153:
722:
694:
566:
492:
440:
427:
276:
198:
189:
78:
deletion of the redirect overturned. The deletion of the article is not contested.
75:
1147:
2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
642:
of the redirect, without comment on whether the redirect can be discussed at RfD.
934:
1337:
also published something about this court decision, and I only listed that one.
1523:
1494:
1450:
552:
501:
347:
312:
291:
1091:
if the appellant is arguing that the close did not reflect the discussion.
181:
993:
Cryptopia heist: Cops update, liquidators ask court to rule on key question
1986:
policy. A routine court-case re: the liquidation, is simply not notable.
1787:
I believe I already explained the same above but I'll do it again for you:
1404:
says "IP addresses are only notified if you post to their user talk page."
1567:
385:
1796:
excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"
1159:
The appellant respectfully disputes the eligibility of G4, your honor.
1156:
excludes "pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies"
1054:
Controversial businessman recruiting
Cryptopia victims for class action
1046:
1042:
Tech firm caught in $ 20m
Cryptopia hack takes legal aim at liquidators
961:
Investors with tens of thousands in Cryptopia waiting for information
930:
How New Zealand company Cryptopia lost over $ 20 million from a hack
1303:
And I did not attempt to list every other source I could find. See:
1013:
Cryptopia anti-money laundering compliance issues revealed to court
1696:
Is this source good enough for NCORP? If not, can you explain why?
1679:
best sources is they exist, and then we can reconsider. Cheers —
942:
Cryptopia first liquidators report shows it owes more than $ 4.2m
275:
cook it. You can only overturn if the close itself was wrong. —
1032:$ 30m Cryptopia heist: Liquidators wheel out the heavy artillery
1064:$ 30m Cryptopia heist: Liquidators likely heading back to court
894:
New Zealand Crypto Firm Hacked to Death, Seeks U.S. Bankruptcy
765:) before recreation, given our problems with this topic area.
1426:- At this point I think the only real question is whether to
1326:
Cryptopia account holders win battle over assets worth $ 140m
971:
Cryptopia boss blames former shareholder for company problems
1748:"As stated by Ysangkok most (or all of them) are garbage"
981:
Liquidators retrieve Cryptopia customer info from Arizona
1221:
845:
831:
823:
815:
488:
484:
329:
158:
144:
136:
128:
1023:
Cryptopia liquidation: Judge rules bitcoin is property
1109:
Arguing that it is not eligible for speedy deletion.
952:
Cryptopia liquidator knocks-back international buyer
878:
Can't believe I have to say this, but quite simply,
1868:
Sabotage or theft? Inside the $ 24m Cryptopia heist
1705:
Sabotage or theft? Inside the $ 24m Cryptopia heist
1288:
Sabotage or theft? Inside the $ 24m Cryptopia heist
1003:
Sabotage or theft? Inside the $ 24m Cryptopia heist
887:
archive.org snapshot of the article during its AfD.
1310:Hacked Cryptopia investors in the dark over rebate
1938:. You're not supposed to "vote" delete here. --
918:US court hands Cryptopia bankruptcy protections
1363:pinging debate participants indiscriminately
461:Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories
118:Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories
71:Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories
8:
1319:This was not in the article during the AfD.
787:The following is an archived debate of the
100:The following is an archived debate of the
1267:also disqualify the sources you listed. --
750:
483:The redirects and links to this page that
63:
714:Natural-born-citizen_clause#Kamala_Harris
1909:It seems already to have been deleted.
1669:Endorse and disallow recreation for now
460:
7:
2066:of the page listed in the heading.
739:of the page listed in the heading.
459:Who do we think is likely to type
28:
619:- this case is a good example of
380:Overturn deletion of the redirect
1430:. But DRV is not a salt mine.
2062:The above is an archive of the
1583:cryptocurrency exchange#History
735:The above is an archive of the
2035:Knowledge is not a news source
1866:Did you look at this source? "
667:Overturn G4 and allow redirect
1:
1144:"Deletion review may be used:
880:it has ongoing media coverage
309:Overturn deletion of redirect
778:20:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
330:See the real internal search
91:20:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
2053:12:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
2025:09:54, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
1997:08:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
1965:23:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
1948:22:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
1919:22:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
1895:02:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
1850:14:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
1824:09:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
1809:02:59, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
1783:07:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
1768:06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
1689:09:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
1658:07:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
1643:06:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
1620:08:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
1602:16:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1577:06:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1550:09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
1532:21:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1518:09:37, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1503:04:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1488:04:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1459:03:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1440:01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1417:23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1397:16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1354:23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1277:16:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1245:01:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1236:23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1215:17:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1206:16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1183:01:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
1169:23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1140:16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1119:23:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1101:16:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1083:10:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
726:07:20, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
702:18:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
683:15:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
662:09:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
635:19:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
612:14:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
595:03:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
570:07:24, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
561:19:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
546:12:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
525:09:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
510:04:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
496:21:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
479:16:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
453:03:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
436:09:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
414:06:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
395:05:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
371:09:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
356:05:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
342:03:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
321:03:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
300:16:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
285:09:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
270:02:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
248:19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
228:18:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
213:17:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
2089:
1936:Knowledge:Deletion_review
1470:is not a way to sidestep
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2069:Please do not modify it.
794:Please do not modify it.
742:Please do not modify it.
423:AFD closing instructions
400:Overturn speedy deletion
201:and should be restored.
107:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1466:. Properly deleted.
1335:The New Zealand Herald
1068:The New Zealand Herald
1036:The New Zealand Herald
1026:The New Zealand Herald
997:The New Zealand Herald
911:The New Zealand Herald
463:into the search box?—
311:per Robert McClenon.
1468:WP:Reference bombing
1062:September 21, 2020 "
600:Overturn G4 deletion
419:Overturn to redirect
1837:Disallow and oppose
1011:February 11, 2020 "
991:December 17, 2019 "
979:December 13, 2019 "
791:of the page above.
104:of the page above.
1703:February 8, 2020 "
1286:February 8, 2020 "
1001:February 8, 2020 "
257:Overturn something
2076:
2075:
1628:I wrote "there's
1600:
1402:Template:Reply to
1017:Radio New Zealand
986:Radio New Zealand
776:
749:
748:
544:
485:were also deleted
477:
89:
2080:
2071:
2048:
2022:
2014:
1994:
1992:
1933:
1865:
1847:
1845:
1757:
1747:
1733:
1592:
1386:
1378:
1370:
862:
857:
848:
834:
826:
818:
796:
775:
773:
766:
751:
744:
697:
659:
651:
536:
469:
411:
406:
175:
170:
161:
147:
139:
131:
109:
88:
86:
79:
64:
53:
33:
2088:
2087:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2067:
2064:deletion review
2046:
2018:
2010:
1990:
1988:
1955:deletion then.
1927:
1859:
1843:
1841:
1751:
1741:
1727:
1432:Robert McClenon
1380:
1372:
1364:
1324:April 8, 2020 "
1198:Robert McClenon
1195:
1175:Robert McClenon
1132:Robert McClenon
1093:Robert McClenon
1052:July 24, 2020 "
1040:July 21, 2020 "
1030:June 15, 2020 "
1021:April 9, 2020 "
969:July 17, 2019 "
959:June 10, 2019 "
858:
856:
853:
844:
843:
837:
830:
829:
822:
821:
814:
813:
792:
789:deletion review
769:
767:
740:
737:deletion review
695:
655:
647:
409:
404:
262:Robert McClenon
245:
210:
171:
169:
166:
157:
156:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
105:
102:deletion review
82:
80:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2086:
2084:
2074:
2073:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2027:
1999:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1922:
1921:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1883:
1875:
1871:
1853:
1852:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1797:
1791:
1788:
1749:
1739:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1698:
1697:
1691:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1623:
1622:
1604:
1579:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1461:
1442:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1405:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1308:April 3, 2019
1305:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1283:
1282:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1223:
1191:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1157:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1104:
1103:
1071:
1070:
1060:
1050:
1038:
1028:
1019:
1009:
999:
989:
977:
967:
957:
950:June 5, 2019 "
948:
940:May 31, 2019 "
938:
928:May 28, 2019 "
926:
916:May 27, 2019 "
914:
904:May 27, 2019 "
902:
892:May 24, 2019 "
872:in a before."
865:
864:
854:
841:
835:
827:
819:
811:
799:
798:
783:
782:
781:
780:
747:
746:
731:
730:
729:
728:
704:
685:
664:
637:
614:
597:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
563:
548:
457:
456:
455:
416:
397:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
323:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
253:
252:
251:
250:
241:
206:
178:
177:
167:
154:
148:
140:
132:
124:
112:
111:
96:
95:
94:
93:
61:
59:2 October 2020
56:
49:2020 October 3
47:
38:
35:2020 October 1
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2085:
2072:
2070:
2065:
2060:
2059:
2054:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2040:
2036:
2031:
2028:
2026:
2023:
2021:
2015:
2013:
2008:
2007:SportingFlyer
2003:
2000:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1974:
1973:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1931:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1906:
1902:
1901:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1863:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1851:
1848:
1846:
1838:
1835:
1834:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1795:
1792:
1789:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1755:
1750:
1745:
1740:
1737:
1731:
1726:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1667:
1666:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1631:
1630:no indication
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1608:
1605:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1590:
1584:
1580:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1564:
1561:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1462:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:relist at AfD
1443:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1403:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1384:
1383:97.113.248.72
1376:
1368:
1362:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1246:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1224:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1194:
1190:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1049:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1008:
1004:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
988:
987:
982:
978:
976:
972:
968:
966:
962:
958:
956:
953:
949:
947:
943:
939:
937:
936:
931:
927:
925:
924:
919:
915:
913:
912:
907:
903:
901:
900:
895:
891:
890:
889:
888:
883:
881:
876:
873:
871:
861:
852:
847:
840:
833:
825:
817:
810:
806:
803:
802:
801:
800:
797:
795:
790:
785:
784:
779:
774:
772:
764:
760:
759:
755:
754:
753:
752:
745:
743:
738:
733:
732:
727:
724:
719:
715:
710:
705:
703:
700:
699:
698:
689:
686:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
665:
663:
660:
658:
652:
650:
645:
644:SportingFlyer
641:
638:
636:
633:
630:
627:
622:
618:
615:
613:
609:
605:
601:
598:
596:
592:
588:
584:
581:
571:
568:
564:
562:
558:
554:
549:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
499:
498:
497:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
424:
420:
417:
415:
412:
407:
401:
398:
396:
392:
388:
387:
381:
378:
372:
368:
364:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
301:
297:
293:
288:
287:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
258:
255:
254:
249:
244:
239:
235:
231:
230:
229:
225:
221:
217:
216:
215:
214:
209:
204:
200:
195:
191:
187:
183:
174:
165:
160:
153:
146:
138:
130:
123:
119:
116:
115:
114:
113:
110:
108:
103:
98:
97:
92:
87:
85:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
2068:
2061:
2044:
2043:
2029:
2017:
2009:
2005:up restore.
2001:
1987:
1979:
1975:
1952:
1904:
1903:
1879:WP:CORPDEPTH
1840:
1836:
1708:
1693:
1668:
1629:
1606:
1588:
1566:
1562:
1463:
1446:
1423:
1360:
1334:
1329:
1312:
1291:
1256:
1192:
1127:
1088:
1072:
1067:
1057:
1045:
1035:
1025:
1016:
1006:
996:
984:
974:
964:
954:
945:
933:
921:
909:
897:
884:
879:
877:
874:
866:
793:
786:
770:
756:
741:
734:
717:
708:
693:
692:
687:
675:Newimpartial
666:
654:
646:
639:
620:
616:
599:
582:
532:
465:
418:
399:
384:
379:
325:
308:
256:
234:procedurally
233:
193:
179:
106:
99:
83:
69:
58:
44:2020 October
1991:scope_creep
1862:Scope creep
1844:scope_creep
1193:Allow Draft
935:The Spinoff
688:Overturn G4
640:Overturn G4
617:Overturn G4
583:Overturn G4
405:‑Scottywong
1589:S Marshall
1586:redirect.—
771:Sandstein
604:Lightburst
533:S Marshall
466:S Marshall
238:Ivanvector
203:Ivanvector
84:Sandstein
1882:overview?
1736:WP:ORGIND
1542:SmokeyJoe
1510:SmokeyJoe
1480:SmokeyJoe
1265:WP:ORGIND
1261:WP:ORGIND
899:Bloomberg
805:Cryptopia
758:Cryptopia
517:SmokeyJoe
445:SmokeyJoe
363:SmokeyJoe
334:SmokeyJoe
1984:WP:NCORP
1940:Ysangkok
1816:Adamant1
1775:Adamant1
1744:Adamant1
1730:Ysangkok
1677:WP:THREE
1673:WP:NCORP
1650:Adamant1
1612:Adamant1
1563:Relist.
1538:WP:THREE
1476:WP:THREE
1389:Ysangkok
1367:Adamant1
1314:Newsroom
1269:Ysangkok
870:WP:NCORP
671:WP:FIXIT
220:Muboshgu
186:Muboshgu
20: |
2047:Hut 8.5
2039:WP:CORP
2030:Endorse
2002:Endorse
1980:Endorse
1976:Comment
1957:Bearian
1953:Endorse
1930:Bearian
1911:Bearian
1754:Amakuru
1694:Comment
1681:Amakuru
1607:Endorse
1472:WP:CORP
1464:Endorse
1424:Comment
1375:Bearian
1361:Comment
1257:endorse
1242:Cryptic
1212:Cryptic
1128:Comment
1089:Endorse
1047:Newshub
860:restore
824:history
723:Cryptic
709:started
696:Hut 8.5
567:Cryptic
493:Cryptic
489:removed
441:Amakuru
428:Amakuru
326:Endorse
277:Amakuru
260:done.
194:because
188:citing
173:restore
137:history
1905:Delete
1220:this?"
763:WP:AfC
1794:WP:G4
1709:Stuff
1573:talk
1524:Hobit
1495:Hobit
1451:Hobit
1330:Stuff
1292:Stuff
1154:WP:G4
1058:Stuff
1007:Stuff
975:Stuff
965:Stuff
955:Stuff
946:Stuff
923:Stuff
846:watch
839:links
553:Hobit
502:Hobit
410:| ||
391:talk
348:Hobit
313:Hobit
292:Hobit
243:Edits
208:Edits
199:WP:G4
190:WP:G4
159:watch
152:links
76:WP:G4
52:: -->
16:<
2037:and
1961:talk
1944:talk
1915:talk
1891:talk
1874:say?
1820:talk
1805:talk
1779:talk
1764:talk
1685:talk
1654:talk
1639:talk
1616:talk
1546:talk
1528:talk
1514:talk
1499:talk
1484:talk
1455:talk
1436:talk
1428:salt
1413:talk
1393:talk
1350:talk
1273:talk
1232:talk
1202:talk
1179:talk
1165:talk
1136:talk
1115:talk
1097:talk
1079:talk
832:logs
816:edit
809:talk
718:this
679:talk
608:talk
591:talk
557:talk
521:talk
506:talk
487:and
449:talk
432:talk
367:talk
352:talk
338:talk
332:. —
317:talk
296:talk
281:talk
266:talk
224:talk
197:for
182:Tone
145:logs
129:edit
122:talk
32:<
1877:3)
1858:1)
1568:DGG
851:XfD
849:) (
632:ich
629:v!v
621:why
386:DGG
164:XfD
162:) (
22:Log
1963:)
1946:)
1917:)
1893:)
1822:)
1814:--
1807:)
1781:)
1766:)
1738:."
1707:"
1687:)
1656:)
1648:--
1641:)
1618:)
1575:)
1548:)
1530:)
1516:)
1501:)
1486:)
1457:)
1438:)
1415:)
1395:)
1387:--
1379:,
1371:,
1352:)
1328:"
1290:"
1275:)
1255:I
1234:)
1204:)
1181:)
1167:)
1138:)
1117:)
1099:)
1081:)
1066:"
1056:"
1044:"
1034:"
1015:"
1005:"
995:"
983:"
973:"
963:"
944:"
932:"
920:"
908:"
896:"
882:.
681:)
673:.
626:Le
610:)
593:)
559:)
523:)
508:)
451:)
434:)
393:)
369:)
354:)
340:)
319:)
298:)
283:)
268:)
246:)
240:(/
226:)
211:)
205:(/
74:–
42::
2020:C
2016:·
2012:T
1959:(
1942:(
1932::
1928:@
1913:(
1907:.
1889:(
1887:Ҥ
1870:"
1864::
1860:@
1818:(
1803:(
1801:Ҥ
1777:(
1762:(
1760:Ҥ
1756::
1752:@
1746::
1742:@
1732::
1728:@
1683:(
1652:(
1637:(
1635:Ҥ
1614:(
1598:C
1596:/
1594:T
1571:(
1544:(
1526:(
1512:(
1497:(
1482:(
1453:(
1434:(
1411:(
1409:Ҥ
1391:(
1385::
1381:@
1377::
1373:@
1369::
1365:@
1348:(
1346:Ҥ
1271:(
1230:(
1228:Ҥ
1200:(
1177:(
1163:(
1161:Ҥ
1134:(
1113:(
1111:Ҥ
1095:(
1077:(
1075:Ҥ
863:)
855:|
842:|
836:|
828:|
820:|
812:|
807:(
721:—
677:(
657:C
653:·
649:T
606:(
589:(
555:(
542:C
540:/
538:T
519:(
515:—
504:(
475:C
473:/
471:T
447:(
430:(
389:(
365:(
361:—
350:(
336:(
315:(
294:(
279:(
264:(
222:(
176:)
168:|
155:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
120:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.