427:. Vanamonde probably didn't do themselves any favours with the waffly closing statement and invoking IAR for no reason, but the outcome is still correct. The purpose of AfD is to decide whether an article should be deleted and there is clearly no consensus to delete this article. What its name ought to be is a subsidiary issue best left to the talk page. As for the nomination here, it's a little rich to criticise a closer for not "properly considering" your three-word !vote. If you thought the article was irretrievable SYNTH or OR, you should have made a case for that in the discussion. –
352:- a reasonable close under the circumstances. My only hesitation is that there will be an appetite to renominate this and going though the motions of a renaming discussion only for that discussion to give reasonable justification for renominating it for deletion seems pointlessly bureaucratic. Given that seems an inevitable outcome, perhaps someone should just be bold, rename the article, and renominate it for deletion so that sources can be properly assessed in the context of a title that better reflects the idea (which is worthwhile, synthesis or not).
525:. I probably would have closed it as NC, or maybe relisted this for another week, but I can't find much to object to with the actual close. The only really important decision a closer has to make is whether to delete or not, and I don't see how this could have been closed as delete. I certainly would have down-weighted the "Simply not notable at all" argument from a user with 87 edits. And "Delete as WP:SYNTH" with nothing to explain why it's synth isn't the best of arguments either. I note that this has already been renamed, to
283:(seriously; they're the same thing) applies to particular article content; if it can be verified or removed it can be solved through regular editing. It would only become a deletion issue if the entire topic were OR/SYNTH, or if there was otherwise no way to improve the article away from OR/SYNTH, otherwise ATD applies, which is precisely what I understand the closer to be saying here: There's evidence this thing exists, but this probably isn't the best name for it.
867:, while finding that there is "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Since G11 says that an article can be speedily deleted when it involves unambiguous advertising or promotion, a speedy deletion done based on a finding of unambiguous advertising or promotion means that it was done based a relevant criterion. Whether promotion is ambiguous or not is something an administrator decides. Whether there is promotion at all so that it could be deemed ambiguous or not is
1001:
had four. Just one quality source is needed to verify a single assertion. Just as you can spoil a gourmet culinary dish by adding too much of one ingredient, you can spoil an article with redundant sources. While
English is preferred, the language doesn't really matter. If the article is restored to draft space, your task would be to cull out the redundant citations to leave only the best ones. ~
986:) First of all, I have no connection with the subject. Second, I have chosen to insert different sources for each info so the editor who doesn't understand arabic for example can read the english or french press article. And they are all quality and not put to show coverage or to create a superficial appearance of notability ! I hope you've understood.--
1483:), Thanks for sharing your opinion. First, about the link, I'm really sure that when you saw MediaMarketing as a title in the link you shared, you automatically thought that it's promotional. I can ensure that it isn't. This offline and online magazine gives regurarly short bios like this about moroccan CEOs and entrepreneurs. Second,
789:
This is a moroccan entrepreneur page. While creating it I made sure to be written in a neutral point of view and not to have a promotional tone. All the press sources are quality ones (if you have an idea about moroccan medias you'll agree with me). Most of them are in french language, but there are
1000:
I made no judgments about the sources; that's a concern for notability, which isn't the issue here and not the reason for deletion. I stand by my view that it came across as a refbombed CV. You don't need three citations on a single short sentence about a single mundane fact. In one case I saw you
369:
No. RENOM gives two months moratorium on renomination, which is enough time to discuss the title, the title concerns are a major reason for the unstated “no consensus on deletion”. DO NOT encourage a bold rename. The closer already did that reasonably, and if you look at the long history of the
200:
As I stated on my talk page when this close was challenged; concerns over synthesis were not elaborated upon; several participants made substantive arguments that the broader phenomenon of Roman Pagan cults being revived was notable; at least one scholarly source in the article was pointed to, and
1373:
Hello, you just should've said it when I asked twice in your talk page but you preferred not to explain. Anyway, I expected this way of thinking. However, you should know that when I finished the entrepreneur page, I saw that 2 of his companies were also eligible, so I said why not? (especially I
938:
signature for a new article by a fairly new editor. Although the article doesn't contain promotional language, it comes across as a CV intended for publicity purposes, with a list of references (many of them redundant and unnecessary) that appears to be there in such quantities for the purpose of
1487:
isn't reliable ? Like many in the article? Third, all sources are from independant and trusted medias in
Morocco (LeMatin, Lesecos, Lesiteinfo, L'economiste, Finance News Hebdo...I hope you've a moroccan friend to ask:) Fourth, I found several other sources but didn't insert them as they are not
897:
Thank you for explaining and clarifying. However, I already know the given reason for the speedy deletion but what I contest is the reason itself. Where did the deleting admin see an unambiguous promotion in the article? Every honest editor here that can check the article will say that there is
274:
isn't just for things that someone can't believe, because there are indeed a bunch of ridiculously strange things on
Knowledge, but requires proving (to a certain standard of proof) a hoax; even if the article was problematic, sources identified suggested it reflected a real phenomenon in some
1305:
I don't believe AFD is the right venue and would waste the community's time. I think it should be draftified for improvement, as I suggested above. The subject appears to be notable, and AFD is basically a referendum on notability, so AFD would simply confirm the notability of the topic.
1211:
As a notice prominently displayed on my talk page says, "ANY reliable administrator is free to reverse ANY administrative action I have taken, whether page protection, page deletion, user block, or anything else." I meant it when I wrote it and I mean it now :-) –
1346:
deletion, which drew my attention to Art&football's pattern of editing promotional pages about commercial subjects of marginal notability. I felt at the time that all three pages should go: they came in as a package deal, they should leave the same way. –
487:
It was though; Ealdgyth, Chiswick Chap, and Æo all clearly suggested renaming, and their arguments were more substantive than those of the "delete" side. Even if you argue there wasn't clear consensus to rename, there certainly was consensus against deletion.
1426:
and needs to be removed during the AfD. The article is flagged as a rough translation from French, which is accurate. Many of the references listed are of poor quality. At the AfD, Art&Football should be ready to explain why he thinks sources like
790:
also some in english and arabic (and no
Knowledge policy requires english references). I don't see any reason for deletion. I discussed with the deleting admin and she referred me to this deletion review page without giving any explanation.
576:. Either endorsing the speedy or listing at AfD would be defensible. I'm going with the later partly because it's the more conservative option, and partly because it will produce a more authoritative outcome, whichever way it goes. --
185:. The reason why a title could not be found is because the article is essentially an original synthesis. At the very least this article should have been draftified until a proper delimited title was found and OR and SYNTH removed.
1017:
You should be rather... happy about the pending offer to move this article to draftspace, and take it as a very serious, and by far the most plausible, path for this article to ultimately (conditions being met) be kept.
396:
doing so too. I still think we should generally avoid pointless bureaucracy, but if there is support for a little bit of bureaucracy in the hope it will produce a better outcome, I'm not opposed to it. And I concede
217:
It's not overwhelming me with its sources, I've got to say. I mean, those are good sources but none of them are specifically about Roman neo-paganism, are they? It does look quite a lot like a novel synthesis to
1581:
It is primarily descriptive, and does not use promotional language, so it not a speedy G11--though it is significantly promotion. I see no point in sending it to Draft--on the available information, he is not
1327:
I think listing at AfD is an excellent idea, and I think also I should undelete two other articles Art&football created on the same day (00:33, 15:11, and 22:59 UTC, 16 September) for
Belkhayat companies:
908:
and that shows that you're not sure and I'm sure there is nothing promotional there. And, if there is nothing promotional, the page shouldn't be deleted ! And you shouldn't vote endorse ! Really, I can't
947:
what is your association with that subject? Is it you or someone you know, or someone who hired you to write the article? Nevertheless, after looking at some of the sources I think this is salvageable.
156:
1284:
per SmokeyJoe. I agree about the reference bombing, cross-language article, and that AfD is a better venue to hash it all out. I agree it's a borderline G11, I do not agree it is unambiguous.
311:
I'm agreeing with the closer's sentiments that based on the discussion this apparently real phenomenon is best described using another name; I have no opinion as to what name that might be.
1045:) I made several sources for each info as I'm really sure that there are reviewers who can delete the page just because they don't understand french or arabic. This happened to me before.--
845:
I just need an explanation for this. Sources are independant and in-depth. No promotional style. Why do you see it's not done outside the criteria? Honestly, did you check the article?--
201:
not rebutted; and article titles do not necessarily have exist verbatim in reliable sources, when they are neutrally describing a phenomenon that is also covered by reliable sources.
144:
469:; renaming was not discussed or supported enough in the AFD to close that way. This will not prevent a rename taking place following discussion on the talk page or pursuant to
1510:
Good to know someone is checking these things, S Marshall. The current image with that name is tagged for deletion on
Commons and a check of "what links here" there turns up
593:
165:
48:
34:
956:
if it's OK with you, I am willing to restore this to draft space provided the author agrees to submit it for review and refrain from moving it to main space. ~
879:
of promotion, for the following reason: In relation to the substantiveness of content, the quantity and quality (at a first glance) of references looks like
43:
1530:, Chari.ma, DizzyDiddy, and Abdou diop show up: they're all in Art&football's editing history here on the English language Knowledge as well. Please,
392:
I did, and my comment above should have had a question mark rather than a full stop. It was a genuine question. But I understand the reasons for
666:
325:
I looked at the history of titles for this page, and they were broadly terrible. I support the closer's NOGOODOPTIONS-justified choice of
114:
1402:
It's standard practice with temporary undeletions for the purposes of deletion review discussions on the
English language Knowledge. –
1484:
1423:
1374:
like writing about this field). Also, I don't agree with the "marginal notability". This is only your point of view. Thanks anyway!--
1042:
983:
839:
681:
39:
1480:
1442:
1428:
1120:
This would just be a process for evaluation so non-admins can see how promotional the tone was. It's not really like a reversal.
229:
1103:
110:
70:
1558:
Not at all. I found him editing a morocco related page and I discovered he is moroccan too so I checked his contributions. --
1256:
1145:
1089:
760:
755:
247:
1188:. Given so many references, it is usually better to send to AfD. The existence of the native language Knowledge article,
1514:
who had previously uploaded it in March this year. I agree with SmokeyJoe about letting the
Commons process play out. –
764:
21:
1527:
714:
709:
747:
718:
1452:
1195:
At AfD, it may very well be deleted, but AfD discussions have purpose beyond just deciding whether to delete or not.
1185:
1618:
1563:
1493:
1393:
1379:
1111:
1050:
991:
914:
850:
795:
701:
616:
547:
526:
326:
94:
17:
370:
article, you’ll see a history of many unsuccessful bold renames. There is no uncontroversial rename to be done.
1184:
On review of the temp-undeleted version. It look and reads like a CV, so I understand the G11. It is heavily
297:
Jclemens, when you say “this probably isn't the best name for it ”, do you mean the prior or the current name?
1596:
for the relationship between this user and MediKass, (who is already blocked for using WP for advertising)
1451:
Agree. One can get too serious about image copyvio. Commons have a process, let that process play out. See
1607:
1567:
1549:
1521:
1497:
1464:
1446:
1409:
1397:
1383:
1368:
1354:
1317:
1293:
1266:
1241:
1219:
1204:
1179:
1158:
1129:
1115:
1074:
1054:
1027:
1012:
995:
967:
918:
892:
854:
821:
799:
603:
583:
536:
513:
499:
482:
457:
438:
413:
379:
364:
338:
320:
306:
292:
263:
243:
233:
212:
194:
83:
808:
Speedy deletion was not done outside of the criteria, and it is disputed as being outside of the criteria (
636:
1511:
1312:
1036:
1023:
1007:
977:
962:
888:
833:
817:
494:
207:
632:
568:
1559:
1533:
1489:
1474:
1438:
1389:
1375:
1107:
1046:
987:
942:
910:
846:
791:
751:
225:
1546:
1539:
1518:
1460:
1406:
1365:
1351:
1263:
1237:
1229:
1225:
1216:
1200:
1175:
1155:
1097:
705:
453:
375:
334:
302:
259:
1289:
1125:
1083:
1070:
600:
580:
533:
316:
288:
1333:
743:
1329:
935:
880:
697:
433:
190:
1307:
1032:
1019:
1002:
973:
957:
884:
829:
813:
509:
490:
478:
403:
354:
203:
79:
1470:
1432:
1340:
276:
251:
219:
174:
1388:
Also, can you tell me why did you blank the entrepreneur page please? Thanks in advance--
1189:
1543:
1515:
1456:
1403:
1362:
1348:
1260:
1233:
1213:
1196:
1171:
1152:
1093:
951:
449:
398:
371:
330:
298:
271:
255:
182:
1603:
1300:
1285:
1121:
1079:
1066:
864:
597:
577:
530:
312:
284:
1255:(As "Explanation" was an unclear section heading, that discussion is now located at
470:
428:
280:
186:
178:
781:
735:
1488:
reliable...I'm aware of the importance of sources. Fifth, we'll see in the AfD.--
505:
474:
75:
1431:
are reliable. In my view its chances of surviving AfD are not very good.—
1598:
1361:(I mean for inclusion of course in the "Speedy AfD" suggested above.) –
401:
is probably the wrong thing to invoke if reversion is a certainty.
871:
something that can be questioned, and I would say that there is
1538:
can you tell us, was MehdiKass another account you used? Was
1422:
The image in the deleted article is a copyvio of the one from
1336:. It was the Sarouty page, which had been tagged for speedy
1590:
for Chari.ma and
Sarouty.ma, which I think are hopeless.
173:
The closer did not properly address concerns raised over
777:
773:
769:
731:
727:
723:
673:
659:
651:
643:
151:
137:
129:
121:
898:
nothing promotional ! Also, you said <<there is
248:
Talk:Revival of Roman paganism#Poll for a new title
883:. This is characteristic of promotional articles.
861:Why do you see it's not done outside the criteria?
939:giving the subject the appearance of notability.
594:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ismael Belkhayat
246:, and was done well. On the title, continue at
1257:User talk:Athaenara/Archive 15#Ismael Belkhayat
1455:. It's 2 or 3 days into their 7 day process.
329:, subject to a formal RM and clear consensus.
8:
1528:Commons:User talk:MehdiKass#Deleted content
615:The following is an archived debate of the
93:The following is an archived debate of the
812:). Administrator acted within discretion.
561:
63:
1192:, I think should be a rule to use AfD.
860:
809:
7:
1065:Can we get a temp undelete, please?
1621:of the page listed in the heading.
1512:the talk page of a now-blocked user
810:I don't see any reason for deletion
550:of the page listed in the heading.
863:, it is because the deleter cited
28:
1453:commons:File:Ismael_Belkhayat.jpg
240:No consensus on deletion; rename
1617:The above is an archive of the
1226:User talk:Athaenara#Explanation
546:The above is an archive of the
111:Cultus Deorum (Modern Religion)
71:Cultus Deorum (Modern Religion)
1608:18:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
1568:14:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1550:13:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1522:12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1498:13:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1465:12:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1447:12:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1410:12:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1398:11:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1384:11:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1369:06:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1355:05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1318:16:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1294:05:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1242:04:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1220:03:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1205:05:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1180:01:42, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1159:04:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1130:01:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1116:00:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1075:23:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
1055:00:28, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1028:21:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
1013:20:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
996:20:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
968:20:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
919:19:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
893:19:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
855:18:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
822:16:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
800:13:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
514:11:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
500:14:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
483:08:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
458:11:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
439:10:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
414:04:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
380:02:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
365:02:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
339:05:27, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
321:05:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
307:02:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
293:01:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
264:01:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
234:00:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
213:22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
195:21:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
1271:07:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
859:In reply to your question of
1267:06:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
1232:#“Failure to communicate”.
604:22:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
584:22:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
537:14:11, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
84:23:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
1644:
1542:your talk page locally? –
1526:Even more interesting, at
527:Revival of Roman paganism
327:Revival of Roman paganism
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1624:Please do not modify it.
622:Please do not modify it.
553:Please do not modify it.
467:Overturn to no consensus
100:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
242:, and the rename was a
1151:per requests here. –
1146:Temporarily undeleted
934:as providing a clear
448:Quite right, laugh. —
250:. On deletion, see
74:– Closure endorsed.
1579:Send the bio to AfD
1540:User talk:MehdiKass
1190:fr:Ismael_Belkhayat
1186:WP:Reference bombed
1106:) can we, please?--
619:of the page above.
97:of the page above.
1282:Speedy list at AfD
1168:Speedy list at AfD
1631:
1630:
1445:
1316:
1272:
1011:
966:
906:of promotion: -->
560:
559:
504:No there wasn't.
437:
232:
59:18 September 2021
49:2021 September 19
35:2021 September 17
1635:
1626:
1560:Art&football
1537:
1534:Art&football
1490:Art&football
1437:
1390:Art&football
1376:Art&football
1345:
1339:
1310:
1304:
1270:
1224:The response at
1150:
1144:
1108:Art&football
1047:Art&football
1005:
988:Art&football
960:
955:
946:
943:Art&football
911:Art&football
847:Art&football
792:Art&football
785:
767:
739:
721:
686:
684:
676:
662:
654:
646:
633:Ismael Belkhayat
624:
569:Ismael Belkhayat
562:
555:
498:
431:
410:
408:
361:
359:
244:WP:NOGOODOPTIONS
224:
211:
168:
163:
154:
140:
132:
124:
102:
64:
53:
33:
1643:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1622:
1619:deletion review
1594:And send to spi
1531:
1343:
1337:
1298:
1148:
1142:
949:
940:
758:
742:
712:
696:
680:
678:
672:
671:
665:
658:
657:
650:
649:
642:
641:
620:
617:deletion review
551:
548:deletion review
489:
406:
404:
357:
355:
202:
164:
162:
159:
150:
149:
143:
136:
135:
128:
127:
120:
119:
98:
95:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1641:
1639:
1629:
1628:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1591:
1588:Endorse speedy
1584:
1583:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1553:
1552:
1524:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1358:
1357:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1193:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1015:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
909:understand !--
825:
824:
787:
786:
740:
693:
692:
688:
687:
669:
663:
655:
647:
639:
627:
626:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
587:
586:
558:
557:
542:
541:
540:
539:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
463:
462:
461:
460:
443:
442:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
385:
384:
383:
382:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
266:
236:
215:
171:
170:
160:
147:
141:
133:
125:
117:
105:
104:
89:
88:
87:
86:
61:
56:
47:
44:2021 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1640:
1627:
1625:
1620:
1615:
1614:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1592:
1589:
1586:
1585:
1580:
1577:
1576:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1541:
1535:
1529:
1525:
1523:
1520:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1430:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1367:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1342:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1323:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1302:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1147:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1092:) I hope so.
1091:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1020:— Alalch Emis
1016:
1014:
1009:
1004:
999:
998:
997:
993:
989:
985:
982:
979:
975:
971:
970:
969:
964:
959:
953:
944:
937:
933:
930:
929:
920:
916:
912:
905:
901:
896:
895:
894:
890:
886:
885:— Alalch Emis
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
857:
856:
852:
848:
844:
843:
841:
838:
835:
831:
827:
826:
823:
819:
815:
814:— Alalch Emis
811:
807:
804:
803:
802:
801:
797:
793:
783:
779:
775:
771:
766:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
720:
716:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
694:
690:
689:
683:
675:
668:
661:
653:
645:
638:
634:
631:
630:
629:
628:
625:
623:
618:
613:
612:
605:
602:
599:
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
582:
579:
575:
571:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
556:
554:
549:
544:
543:
538:
535:
532:
528:
524:
521:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
501:
496:
492:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
464:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
445:
444:
440:
435:
430:
426:
423:
422:
415:
412:
411:
400:
395:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
366:
363:
362:
351:
348:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
273:
270:
267:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:
216:
214:
209:
205:
199:
198:
197:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
167:
158:
153:
146:
139:
131:
123:
116:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
96:
91:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1623:
1616:
1595:
1593:
1587:
1578:
1477:
1433:
1324:
1281:
1254:
1230:WP:ADMINACCT
1167:
1100:
1086:
1039:
980:
931:
903:
899:
876:
872:
868:
836:
805:
788:
621:
614:
573:
567:
552:
545:
522:
466:
424:
402:
393:
353:
349:
268:
239:
220:
172:
99:
92:
69:
58:
1485:this source
1308:Anachronist
1033:Anachronist
1003:Anachronist
974:Anachronist
958:Anachronist
830:Alalch Emis
574:List at AfD
1471:S Marshall
1434:S Marshall
1334:Sarouty.ma
936:WP:REFBOMB
904:appearance
881:WP:REFBOMB
877:appearance
744:Sarouty.ma
221:S Marshall
1544:Athaenara
1516:Athaenara
1457:SmokeyJoe
1424:this page
1404:Athaenara
1363:Athaenara
1349:Athaenara
1261:Athaenara
1234:SmokeyJoe
1214:Athaenara
1197:SmokeyJoe
1172:SmokeyJoe
1153:Athaenara
1094:Athaenara
952:Athaenara
900:certainly
873:certainly
691:See also:
491:Vanamonde
450:SmokeyJoe
372:SmokeyJoe
331:SmokeyJoe
299:SmokeyJoe
256:SmokeyJoe
204:Vanamonde
1582:notable.
1481:contribs
1330:Chari.ma
1325:Comment:
1301:Jclemens
1286:Jclemens
1122:Jclemens
1104:contribs
1090:contribs
1080:Jclemens
1067:Jclemens
1043:contribs
984:contribs
840:contribs
806:Endorse.
698:Chari.ma
598:RoySmith
578:RoySmith
531:RoySmith
313:Jclemens
285:Jclemens
277:WP:SYNTH
275:manner.
252:WP:RENOM
181:, &
175:WP:SYNTH
20: |
932:Endorse
761:protect
756:history
715:protect
710:history
682:restore
652:history
592:Now at
523:Endorse
425:Endorse
399:WP:BOLD
350:Endorse
272:WP:HOAX
269:Endorse
238:I read
187:4meter4
183:WP:HOAX
166:restore
130:history
1469:Hello
1341:db-g11
1259:.) –
1228:fails
972:Hello
865:WP:G11
828:Hello
765:delete
719:delete
601:(talk)
581:(talk)
534:(talk)
529:. --
506:Stifle
475:Stifle
76:Daniel
1604:talk
907:: -->
869:maybe
782:views
774:watch
770:links
736:views
728:watch
724:links
674:watch
667:links
471:WP:BB
409:lwart
360:lwart
281:WP:OR
179:WP:OR
152:watch
145:links
52:: -->
16:<
1564:talk
1494:talk
1475:talk
1461:talk
1429:this
1394:talk
1380:talk
1332:and
1313:talk
1290:talk
1238:talk
1201:talk
1176:talk
1170:. —
1126:talk
1112:talk
1098:talk
1084:talk
1071:talk
1051:talk
1037:talk
1024:talk
1008:talk
992:talk
978:talk
963:talk
915:talk
889:talk
851:talk
834:talk
818:talk
796:talk
778:logs
752:talk
748:edit
732:logs
706:talk
702:edit
660:logs
644:edit
637:talk
510:talk
495:Talk
479:talk
454:talk
434:talk
376:talk
335:talk
317:talk
303:talk
289:talk
279:AKA
260:talk
218:me.—
208:Talk
191:talk
138:logs
122:edit
115:talk
80:talk
32:<
1599:DGG
902:an
875:an
596:--
429:Joe
394:not
254:. —
157:XfD
155:) (
22:Log
1606:)
1566:)
1547:✉
1519:✉
1496:)
1463:)
1407:✉
1396:)
1382:)
1366:✉
1352:✉
1344:}}
1338:{{
1292:)
1264:✉
1240:)
1217:✉
1203:)
1178:)
1156:✉
1149:}}
1143:{{
1128:)
1114:)
1073:)
1053:)
1026:)
994:)
917:)
891:)
853:)
842:)
820:)
798:)
780:|
776:|
772:|
768:|
763:|
759:|
754:|
750:|
734:|
730:|
726:|
722:|
717:|
713:|
708:|
704:|
572:–
512:)
481:)
473:.
456:)
405:St
378:)
356:St
337:)
319:)
305:)
291:)
262:)
193:)
177:,
82:)
42::
1602:(
1562:(
1536::
1532:@
1492:(
1478:·
1473:(
1459:(
1443:C
1441:/
1439:T
1392:(
1378:(
1315:)
1311:(
1306:~
1303::
1299:@
1288:(
1236:(
1199:(
1174:(
1124:(
1110:(
1101:·
1096:(
1087:·
1082:(
1069:(
1049:(
1040:·
1035:(
1022:(
1010:)
1006:(
990:(
981:·
976:(
965:)
961:(
954::
950:@
945::
941:@
913:(
887:(
849:(
837:·
832:(
816:(
794:(
784:)
746:(
738:)
700:(
685:)
679:(
677:)
670:|
664:|
656:|
648:|
640:|
635:(
508:(
497:)
493:(
477:(
452:(
441:.
436:)
432:(
407:★
374:(
358:★
333:(
315:(
301:(
287:(
258:(
230:C
228:/
226:T
210:)
206:(
189:(
169:)
161:|
148:|
142:|
134:|
126:|
118:|
113:(
78:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.