Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name

1437:'s concerns. Seems inherently incomplete and unmaintainable and indiscriminate to me, but the idea of deleting this kind of critical mass of good faith contribution is also boggling. And the fact that it's already survived numerous AfD's makes me reticent to vote for deletion. I get that consensus can change over time, but at a point I think repeated noms can kind of be like trying and re-trying a criminal for the same offense until you find a jury who'll convict. My larger concern is this: the idea that this list is useful to people on Knowledge who can't spell is contingent on people actually being able to find this index. I've been typing away at Knowledge a solid year now and this AfD is the first time I'm hearing such a thing exists. And I think it's safe to say that the same thing goes for the attentive wikipedians I know who can't spell their way out of a wet paper bag. I am in no way convinced that this index is even remotely useful, but I'm also not convinced that it's not. And in a case like this, I think doubt has to equal retention of the article. 764:- It seems to me that deleting pages such as this, which people probably put a lot of time into, and that could be seen as fitting into Knowledge were some of you to have a different outlook and be more familiar with different guidelines, such as list guidelines, the community might not risk losing editors by deleting their good faith contributions. Furthermore, many of these pages have been updated recently. Additionally, there are not 6.5 billion notable people to list on Knowledge. There are only so many notable people, and in fact, the list might actually be rather manageable, relatively speaking. It may not actually be as amorphous as some see it as being. Eventually, it could be relatively complete, or at least stable to the point of only newly notable people are being added and non-notable people being taken off. And as another user comments, it will be useful to at least one of the other, maybe 6.496 billion, non-notable — people probably many more. -- 640:, lists are for information, navigation, and development. Because this system of lists includes roughly 25% of the encyclopedia's scope, it seems unlikely to serve a purpose for information. It is too close to being wholly indiscriminate. Because it cannot hope to be complete, even against existing articles, it is of questionable value as a navigation tool. Additionally, the category system already serves to allow navigation on a large scope. And both of these problems — incompleteness and scale — prevent it from being valuable for development. Additionally, there may be BLP problems. One redlinked entry from 261:, and much of the rest of the comment is, frankly, somewhat less than intelligible. And what is up with the odd capitalization, by the way — would you mind using normal capitalization? It makes reading your thoughts difficults. At any rate, I am taking it upon myself to unprotect this xfD so as to permit the discussion to resume. I strongly caution against wheel-warring (I certainly do not intend to revert if the page becomes re-protected), but I urge Jerzy to re-evaluate his or her approach. Please limit discussion of this protection/suspension to the talk page, everyone. Thanks. 832:, strongly. The notion that the fact that editors have found a page "useful" is considered by some to be a weak reason for keeping it is so wrongheaded that it shocks the conscience. It may be that the maintenance of these pages is a task best suited for a bot of some kind. But indexing and reader friendliness remain weaknesses of the project in general. Search functions not only eat up resources; they also are unhelpful to people who need to see a list in text to remind themselves of what exactly it was they were looking for. Lists like this serve that purpose. - 1789:- I actually use Knowledge regularly to look up names of obscure historical people. Sometimes the name I type in or search for is not there. But I don't give up. I try combinations of the Knowledge search results, Knowledge disambiguation pages and Google results. Sometimes I find that disambiguation pages are woefully incomplete, and there are 5-6 people with the same surname missing from the list. If I could reliably get a list of all the articles with "Fraser" in the title, that would be fine, but that is difficult at the moment. I could look at 1003:. Secondly, as for this list being "unmaintainable" manually, in the past few months I have added several thousand names to the list. Now, if at some point, we could get a large enough group of people to work together, the list could be populated relatively quickly (with names of people who satisfy notability guidelines and have an article on WP). Lastly, no one has yet explained how this is original research. -- 1325:. That is an incredibly clunky and outdated way of generating a list, but it was the only way I could think of listing all the earthquake articles in that category and its subcategories. Something similar needs to be done for the biographical articles. I agree the current set-up of pages is not it, but please preserve and compare the two sets of information before assuming that one duplicates the other. 436: 1756:. That led me to believe that LoPbN in that case had important information. The arguemtn still holds, because undoubtedly there are other pages like that. It is partly my fault, but creating that impression during a deletion discussion is misleading, and it would be better if you mention edits like this, as otherwise people misunderstand the history of the pages in question. 1596:. My point is that sometimes browsing a category is the best option, sometimes browsing a list is the best option, and sometimes browsing a set of search results is the best option. Now apply this to people. I would love to be able to click "X" in an alphabetical index and see a set of biographical articles on people who's names begin with X. Currently, that list is at 1298:

those previous discussions, in fact these were very heavily discussed deletions with many valid and interesting points on both sides, and I think it was downright dishonest to suggest otherwise. This discussion amounts to "what are appropriate ways to index content in Knowledge" -- this isn't just some list about Family Guy episodes. --

1283:

notable. However, this trend cannot be expected to continue. Over time, the rate of new notable person articles will approach the rate of new notable persons. I submit that the rate of new notable persons is low enough that, although it may be difficult to 'maintain' this list now, in the future maintaining it will become trivial. —

98:- I would like to request a bot be used to list, on a single page all the articles listed on these pages (unless there are simpler methods). This would allow comparison with existing lists and categories, and allow gradual progression from this system to a more maintainable one that would, ultimately, use the transclusion list of 684:, there is simply no way it can be kept for the long term owing to continued attempts to delete by persons who vigorously oppose its existence. It is not original research, it is not useless, and it is not unmaintainable but it is unpopular - and that is the reason why it is ultimately doomed to deletion. --User:Ceyockey ( 728:(these were chosen randomly based on using hte random_article feature); I find the related changes pages to be reasonably sized morsels for compartmentalized and directed anti-vandalism surveillance in an area - biography - where vandalism has a magnified impact. Thank you for asking for some explanation. --User:Ceyockey ( 2030:

be deleted immediately. Just like the closure/deletion of Esperanza, there would be a transition period wherein a team of people (impromptu Wikiproject formation?) section the content up to distribute it to standard disambiguation pages. In the process, this will also greatly improve the status and

1709:

The issue of whether to disambiguate on first names has been a contentious one for some time. I think the current consensus is that one typically doesn't list all persons with first (given) naems that are identical except under those circumstances where they are colloqially referred to by their first

1015:

You do understand that WikiProject Biography has identified nearly 400,000 biographical articles, and that there's possibly many more than that? How could a list of that size possibly be maintained manually? What use is an incomplete list? Finally, it doesn't matter what happened in previous deletion

254:

Procedural comment: It is quite true that the many Keep votes do not establish a binding precedent in the way that precedents function in Anglo-American jurisprudence. Nevertheless, if this process should end with a Delete result, i will insist on its review via WP:VPP, for the following reasons that

124:

I'm sorry, but that would create a page that would be far to large to effectively load or edit, unless I am misunderstanding what you are proposing. A better way would be to request that some back-end gap analysis be done via direct queries against the database in order to scope out the problem. If

2025:

disambiguation page. In some cases (the "van ..." people, below), the people may need to be split off into one or two sub-disambiguation pages. That's an editorial issue, and its fairly complex, but its neither here nor there. Obviously, even assuming that this M/AFD finds for deletion, the pages

715:

actually, the number of related changes is quite modest for each terminal page as biographical articles are not heavily edited as a class. There is a balance to be struck in keeping the pages to a particular size range that helps in this respect (though I've personally not given much thought to the

166:

has a similar set-up to the pages used here. It has links to the "Fr", "Go", "Ff", etc. sections of the category. So both systems (list and categories) are trying to do similar things, but as far as I can tell, both systems are failing. The list is out-of-date and practically impossible to maintain.

1203:

The number of non-Rdr main-namespace pages involved, which is approaching 1000 (including both name-bearing pages and pages that serve only for navigation within the tree). (One aspect is the effort required to cleanly delete it, or to restore it if undeletion should be mandated; in this regard one

679:

This has been up for deletion and kept at least 8 times. It appears that this page set is going the way of other perennially nominated pages and it will, eventually, be deleted simply as a matter of time. Radiant's bringing it here is pretty much a death knell for the page set as this is a highly

451:

I'm not sure I agree with the justification for listing this at MfD. Even though the main page is an index, collectively, this is a list not too much different (except in size) from other lists, and I tend to think that AfD would be a better place for the debate. However, whereever its debated, I

251:

Struck out; over-ruled. Sorry, but you cannot suspend an xfD which you are a participant in under poorly-explained "procedural" grounds and contextual objections. You protect the page for three days, promise to come back in 24 hours, but you do not even provide us with a brief summary as to what is

1044:

He probably means that they are exempt in practice if they are being displayed on the main page. There's no explicit policy for this, but (again, in practice) all such nominations are bad-faith and are quickly closed (and the afd templates get taken off, since they are seen as vandalism). It's not

998:

in the past. Is there any sort of rule as to how many times an article can be proposed for deletion until it is finally decided that it will definitely be kept, or how much time must elapse from one deletion proposal to the next? (I did a brief search for such a rule, but cannot find one.) The

2053:

I spent the bonus points I earned in a previous AFD to buy psychic powers. Or ... failing that, a couple of highly targeted Google searches. "+Fry +born site:enwikipedia.org" and "+Fry +died site:en.wikipedia.org" get all but the worst-written of biography articles, although there are about 20

1588:- I would love to be able to browse such a list, but unfortunately that is not possible at the moment as no-one seems to want to provide this funtionality for Knowledge readers. As an example, consider someone who wants to browse the articles Knowledge has on earthquakes. They can try and browse 1297:

And I want to point out that the nominator seems to have deliberately misrepresented the contents of the previous deletion discussions. Rather than take the noms word for it, I went through and read the discussions myself. There's a lot more than "I think it's useful" and "I likee" going on in

644:

reads "American criminal". Maybe he is. Maybe he isn't. I have no idea how long it has been there (it predates the last subpage-shuffling on 24 Mar 2007) nor who added it. How many other entries present this same problem? How would we know? I'm not a deletionist, and I'm always hesitant to

2407:

It is always painful to remove content into which much work has been invested; however, this system is clearly considered too unwieldy to be useful, at least by most commenters here. I'm sure some valuable disambiguation information remains in this list, so it should combed before deletion, to

2323:

numbers of people named 'van...'. This might seem a trivial thing, but it really is the sort of thing people do ask ocassionally: "Oh, do you have a list of your articles on people named 'van'? I'm doing some research on Dutch/German names and such a list would be helpful. Hmm? What's that? You

2259:

cross-referencing through the Living People category (although most of these 10 new entries are living people). I found these through another google search specifically intended to return stubby, malformed biography articles (some of these probably don't meet inclusion standards), but I cannot

1316:

and its subcategories, or a list of all articles linking to the WP:WPBIO talk page template? If so, can they (a) post that 'category' list somewhere; (b) do something similar for the 'list' pages nominated for deletion here; (c) cross-reference the two lists. The annotations on this list can be

1282:

Comment regarding maintainability: There are at any given time a (large but) finite number of notable persons in history. During any period of time, a small number of persons become notable. At present, articles on notable persons are being added to Knowledge faster than persons are becoming

702:

Honest question. How do these lists assist in anti-vandalism work? They are very, very large and change regularly, so it would seem that their related changes lists would be unwieldy? Is there some way to employ these for anti-vandalism that is more efficient or effective than watchlisting

139:

I guess what I am asking for is a way to query Knowledge and get back the result: "List of people with names beginning with B", or whatever letter you want to chose. Or even "Ba", or "Ch" or "Fra". This is not an unreasonable request, and I suspect it can be done fairly easily. If we can have

1768:

Actually, I made the edit and then followed the links to this discussion, not the other way around. That movement of names was one thing that motivated me to post here; I thought, "How would the deletion or permanence of this article affect what I had just done? Would the names be lost?"

1312:- delete if and only if currently existing categories can be used to generate an equivalent list. Seriously, I see people saying that categories serve the purpose of this list. In fact, categories and lists have always been separate things. Can anyone, right now, create a full list from 1223:

The number of LoPbN AfDs that have failed: a successful AfD would purport to have been the single process to make the right decision among a probably unprecedented number of deletion debates with the same substance; that would be an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary

233:

Until i can find time to explain thoroughly and propose remedies, i am protecting this page, lest those too hurried to catch this notice, or too impatient to respect it, waste their own or others time and effort by continuing to pursue the discussion in this tainted present context.

880:" in a search engine unless you already know how to spell them, but on a text list you can recognize what you are looking for. If I'm trying to find out what's out there, I'd rather read a text index than try to formulate a search query that will call forth the desired result. - 893:; you will find what's on an incomplete list of things which are there. If someone actually got a bot to update the list, I might change my opinion, but I find it highly unlikely that such a bot would be allowed to run. Anyway, as it is, this list misrepresents what we have. - 2007:

15 bonus points! :-) I agree, LoPbN is not working, and I agree that the disambiguation information should be put back into separate disambiguation pages for each name (though in some ways that is less efficient). Question is, how do we do that if the pages are deleted?

510:

Of course it would not include everybody, only people whose inclusion is merited by notability guidelines. When I am adding people to the list, I consider anyone sufficiently notable to have a WP article that survives, is notable enough to be included in the list.

1348:

links to over 2,000,000 articles (see the "from=2052537" bit of the URL)? Regardless, can anyone tell me how many article talk pages transclude WPBiography, and how many people are on this list that is proposed for deletion? If not, then information is being lost.

551:, no reason for deletion. The list is indeed useful to readers (let me know when we are no longer attempting to make a useful encyclopedia). This is a perfectly reasonable list of well-defined scope. It is no harder to maintain than any other article on Knowledge. 1250:

These are all factors not anticipated in the deletion policies, and rare enough that the failure to consider them has had little chance to be identified as a problem; it is fair to say that there is no settled policy that AfD is competent to decide this question.

1180:

2264:

require more attention and development; they are inglorious, so they get ignored. But I think this "Fry" exercise testifies to the insurmountable barriers facing any sort of comprehensive "index to Knowledge", which is fundamentally what LoPbN aspires to be.

751:

per my same argument in the last AfD at the end of December: Wholly indiscriminate list, completely impossible to maintain. Categories and lists of specific groups serve as a much better means of organizing and indexing articles about people on Knowledge.

596:

or any of probably a thousand other lists of people in the encyclopedia already. And that doesn't begin to touch all the one-off biography articles scattered about the article space. Simply, it is not successfully being maintained, and probably could

273:

I have to agree with El_C in principle that it's not a good idea to suspend discussion just because there are some procedural concerns. If there is concern that the outcome of the discussion has been compromised by a procedural lapse, that is what

2324:

deleted it? Oh dear. Maybe you have a category with all those articles in it? You don't. Oh dear. Maybe you have a list of all pages stating "van"? Oh, not all those redirects have been created. Maybe you have a disambiguation page such as

350:

Since this is an index page rather than article content, I'm listing it on MFD (it's on AFD too). This page and its subpages purport to be a list of all people with articles in Knowledge. In that, they're hopelessly outdated since, unlike

1666:

That is an excellent point. I knew I'd seen lists like this already somewhere. All the "name" disambiguation pages look like these pages already, though many disambiguation more than just the names of people, so that would be a problem.

1531:. It would seem to me that the huge effort that would be required to make this complete (and maintain it as such) would be far better spent on the articles themselves. There may be some use to it but I think it is decidedly limited. 849:

worse waste of resources than using the search function is, and we still wouldn't be able to get uncategorized articles, making people think that we don't have an article when we do. Oh, and I have never met anyone who honestly

1689:, the DAB page for the term? If they weren't re-added somewhere else, Knowledge would lose a valuable listing. Also, a comment above mentioned that this article, unlike categories, must be maintained manually. Why not create a 1652:. (P.S. I do know it's not as simple as this (for instance, what to do with fictional 'William White's), but I think the concept as a whole has merit though the implementation would need sigificant thought.) --User:Ceyockey ( 2291:

None of the living people in that additional list are so marked. And there is no way I am going to manually extract all the Smiths from Google searches. My sanity may be in question already, but at least I don't gibber.

907:

People who don't know how to spell something won't be able to find it in a list either. If you look in the list for "Cuahog", "Reukocyte" or "Sammetichus I", all perfectly plausible mispelings, you won't find them either.

1558:

this useless bunch of articles. Once upon a time they may have had a purpose but by now they are simply an unmaintainable morass that duplicates functionality much better served by subject-specific lists and categories.

1000: 610:

If by "maintain" you mean preserve in an complete or close to complete state, then we aren't maintaining more than 1% of our existing articles. This page remains functional and useful despite being incomplete, just as

1365:

Until the Knowledge search function is improved to find pages that users cannot spell correctly, this will be a useful list. It seems very tedious to maintain, but obviously there are people willing to try. The

2054:

pages of results to fish through. You may note that there are a couple in my 15 Fry list that don't show up on those Google searches; I got lucky with wikilinks to those from other articles. This process

1217:

_ _ another couple hundred template-talk namespace pages are important for supporting modification of their accompanying template pages to support growth of subtrees below their corresponding index-only

112:. While such discussions were proceding, these pages would be kept, as they are not actively harming anything. Once the new system was in place, these pages could be deleted or put up for MfD/AfD again. 789:, a page that has existed since October 2006. No link. OK, that's only one, but if an article that is seven months old has not found its way how many others are there? Well, here's a few more Nevilles: 605: 2282:(unindent) I wonder how many were missed by living people because they lacked the tag, and how many were merely incorrectly pipe-sorted? Aren't we lucky we didn't take "Smith" as an example... :-) 238: 2408:

ensure all useful material is extracted. Given its burden on WP's resources, and the improbability of its being widely-employed for any helpful purpose, it is time for this system to be removed.

1026:

There is no Knowledge guideline or policy that limits either the number or timeframes for deletions. The only guideline I know of is that a FA cannot be nominated for deletion while it is a FA.

1722:

isn't colloquially known simply as 'Johnny'. It's a grey area in the "dab canon". (P.S. it says something weird that I could type Arnold's last name correctly the first time) --User:Ceyockey (

1519:, there is some additional information provided by the lists vs. a category "People", that is some immediate biographic detail: "German swimmer (b. - d.)" which is not possible in a category. 2296: 2269: 2062: 2035: 2001: 1271:

Knowledge is not a court of law, nor is it a democracy. Consensus can change as times change. Quite simply, Knowledge has outgrown this list and no number of big words alters that "fact". --

356: 822: 707: 653: 1861:

But we could load that information back into the disambiguation pages themselves, explicitly, rather than simply referring to part of LoPbN. Also, how many "bonus points" do I earn for:

367:, but as indices go we really have a lot better to offer than this. Knowledge contains about 400,000 articles on people, making this list unwieldy at best and original research at worst. 108:

to generate an alphabetical index of all the biographies on Knowledge. That index would then be our equivalent of the index found at the back of biographical dictionaries, such as the

2368:

shows that the article was speedy-deleted. Surely when an article is speedy deleted the deleting admin should clear up the red-links and remove them, or am I missing something there?

1016:

debates; times change and the makeup of the community changes, and thus consensus can change. Probably now that we have some numbers people will see how unmaintainable this is. --

1817:(17-year-old who is 231st in line to the British throne). But this sort of thing demonstrates some of the problems inherent in maintaining disambiguation for names in Knowledge. 1810: 2384:

should have no red-links at all. Those red-links associated with deleted articles should be removed. Those red-links that are for not-yet-created articles should go into the

1164:) and expect that unless each of them is specifically refuted by Del voters, the nomination will fail via ignoring of Del votes on grounds of low quality of their arguments. 125:

I were experienced in this particular database's details, I'd offer to do these queries myself (hmm, I should get that knowledge under my belt sometime ...). --User:Ceyockey (

1243:

_ _ contribute to the connectedness among articles (an issue i haven't heard discussed lately, tho one whose importance was recognized early on and has not likely receded).

470:

Since double transclusion hurts little, I'm going to go ahead and transclude this on AfD too. I leave it up to somebody else whether this should extend the closing date. -

1802: 1592:, but the earthquake articles there are hidden away in separate subcategories that are many clicks apart. Now consider the (now-outdated) list I generated and deposited 1495:- completely unmaintainable, and so unwieldly it's untrue. Users here are saying it's "useful", but there's very little insight as to what it is actually useful for. - 2202:

to create a super-category, will produce something with much of the functionality of LoPbN, and that will be far more maintainable (just add DEFAULTSORTED articles to

343: 636:. I know that a lot of work has been put into this, but the problems seem insurmountable. At its core, this does not meet the needs of Knowledge's lists. From 2342:, or the equivalent LoPbN page could claim to be comprehensive. Possibly a pipe-sorted category could be, but that depends on pipe-sorting being done correctly. 2555:; the advantage to this option is that it would be completely "self-maintaining" - once an article was tagged with the category, the list would self-generate. 1160:. The retention arguments i & others have made before are still valid, and i think it is appropriate to "include them by reference" here (see first box on 1852:, can you easily find the 20 people named Fry who have Knowledge articles? Bonus points if you can find any extra people called Fry with Knowledge articles. 408:) I don't know what is. They are, however, nowhere near complete, making their usefulness moot and possibly even entering the realms of original research. -- 2210: 2048: 2012: 737: 622: 948:

on the basis the list requires manual updating, which isn't realistic. If someone created a bot to maintain this, it could be a useful navigational aid.

316: 311: 1208: 320: 2089:. I then clicked back one (an argument for a three-letter index allowing someone to navigate straight to Fry), and found a list of 21 living Fry's: 303: 1829:- It's simply a waste of resources. The amount of maintenance that would be necessary to make it a valuable resource would be unbelievable. -- 802: 200:

used to browse it. That is one way to access the Biographical articles by name. Then there is only the small problem of pipe-sorting to fix...

163: 149: 593: 2564:

And then have an index page for the 26 categories. That would be easier than having a three-letter largeCategoryTOC. What about cases like

960:. I am unsure how a list of this nature could ever truly be maintainable. Even then I fail to see how it is even remotely encyclopedic. 586: 589: 2021:

useful information in LoPbN; it's just the format that's a real problem. The "Fry" information, for example, can be moved over to the

2067:

Now, I wonder how many Fry's there are on the list of just under 380,000 articles that has been produced using AWB and discussed at

2017:

They were worth one point apiece? Sweet! Seriously, though, my real suggestion for dealing with this is to disassemble it. There

17: 999:

last time this article was up for deletion, in December-January, numerous detailed, sound arguments were given for keeping in the

721: 2192:

This method does rely on the pipe-sorting of the articles to be correct, but already, I think, we can see how one simple edit to

1144: 583: 109: 2380:

I think this is a valid topic for here because it gets to people's concerns about maintainability. My personal feeling is that

2319:, and I looked around for a "van" people disambiguation page to help decide whether to list him under 'S' or 'V', and there are 1840:

What about the disambiguation information on many of these pages? Deleting all these pages would lose that information. Look at

1640:

It would not be unreasonable to propose a major revision to the way in which disambiguation of personal names is done such that

1197: 442:

The page is extremely hard to understand, I agree with Amarkov's comments, it would be too hard to maintain if kept. Regards -

1101: 854:

to manually look though a big list, when they could type the thing they want into a box and have a computer look for them. -

669: 717: 2572: 2559: 2520: 2412: 2397: 2385: 2372: 2346: 2333: 2286: 1856: 1835: 1821: 1773: 1760: 1747: 1731: 1701: 1671: 1661: 1632: 1616: 1604: 1572: 1550: 1535: 1523: 1511: 1499: 1487: 1475: 1441: 1421: 1407: 1378: 1353: 1329: 1302: 1287: 1275: 1261: 1174: 1151: 1120: 1108: 1079: 1067: 1052: 1039: 1030: 1020: 1010: 986: 974: 952: 932: 902: 884: 863: 836: 809: 777: 774: 756: 693: 671: 619: 570: 567: 558: 555: 543: 518: 505: 479: 465: 446: 429: 412: 391: 287: 265: 204: 171: 134: 116: 80: 62: 725: 716:

mathematics that could be used to determine optimum size). Take a look at some of the related changes pages, such as

2361: 2071:? At that discussion, I've also come up with my own list of Frys. Only living ones, I'm afraid. What I did was go to 1845: 1806: 641: 2493: 2476: 2459: 2203: 177: 145: 2445:(this is a 10MB file that is too large to be uploaded as a wiki-page), and ensure that any LoPbN articles lacking 1063:

I concur with the nominator and per Serpent's Choice above. There are BLP concerns here too. So let's delete it.--

868:

There are many occasions where a text list is more helpful than a search function: it next to impossible to find "

167:

The category system doesn't have a single overarching category for Biographies, but splits them up by assessment.

2615: 2506: 2486: 2079: 2068: 1161: 995: 307: 275: 194: 36: 2328:? You do? Wonderful! ... What do you mean it links to the deleted page?? <researcher gives up in disgust: --> 1649: 1374:. The fact that new articles may not be included on the list for quite some time is not a reason to delete it. - 1814: 1597: 798: 794: 768: 2499:(6) Initiate and maintain processes to ensure correct pipe-sorting or DEFAULTSORTing of biographical articles. 2614:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a

2565: 616: 564: 552: 299: 87: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a

1214:

_ _ nearly as many are (for now, tho they could be phased out at any time that that became a priority), and

420:. It's a year later, we have 1.7 million articles, an index that needs manual updating simply won't work. - 2293: 2266: 2072: 2059: 2032: 1998: 819: 704: 650: 602: 141: 1370:

of biographies which are not yet included on the list will continue to decrease over time as we approach

2040:

Thanks. That is reassuring to hear. And those Fry's you found mustn't be left out in the cold. Just how

1711: 1284: 1193: 1064: 1049: 536: 443: 2556: 1770: 1744: 1698: 1752:

Hey! I just noticed you moved some of those names from the disambiguation page to the LoPbN list. See

972: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below.

2466: 2449: 2439: 2339: 2325: 2312: 2196: 1982: 1942: 1589: 1461: 1418: 1367: 1342: 1322: 1137: 1117: 994:. Two main points. As another user noted, this article (and those like it) has been up for deletion 184: 156: 102: 2058:

may not find all the appropriate articles, and it's very, very slow, but it's better than nothing.

1230:

The importance of its function of facilitating access to a central portion of the project: the bios

2502:(7) Browse the new category using the index provided by the newly-designed three-letter version of 2236: 1520: 1496: 1438: 502: 1794: 1236:

_ _ tend to be significant tools for studying every area of human knowledge (and crucial for many

2391: 1882: 1725: 1655: 1547: 1484: 1384: 1096: 983: 909: 731: 687: 667: 368: 281: 128: 2131: 1930: 162:. Let's have a quick look... No. I forgot the "200 articles" display limit. But I did find that 2206:

to automatically insert them in the right place in the super-category). What do people think?

1938: 1710:

name. For instance, the cases of 'Arnold' (er, 'Ahnold' perhaps) and 'Bill' come to mind for

898: 859: 601:

successfully be maintained to any degree of completeness in regard to the rest of Knowledge.

475: 425: 401: 364: 1830: 1317:

deleted as far as I am concerned, but the fundamental reason behind this sort of list is the

2316: 1914: 1196:, and (tho i think it has been moved, or omitted in a rewrite of the page) was on record in 1046: 1007: 814:

Regarding the time-to-entry in this list, the earl's article linked above has existed since

771: 529: 515: 360: 152:. The subcategories of that should, theoretically, contain all the articles that transclude 2381: 1641: 649:

large content, and this is both. But I think its the right choice, for a lot of reasons.

2569: 2517: 2369: 2343: 2330: 2283: 2207: 2045: 2009: 1934: 1853: 1818: 1757: 1668: 1625: 1601: 1583: 1472: 1430: 1350: 1326: 1313: 1258: 1171: 1129: 1076: 842: 680:

respected contributor and admin. Therefore, though I personally find the pages useful in

461: 201: 168: 113: 2357: 1910: 1874: 1629: 1532: 1371: 877: 790: 637: 1922: 1719: 1645: 1644:

becomes the default disambiguation point for personal names. For instance, the page

1567: 1561: 1544: 1299: 1272: 1233:

_ _ are (it seems safe to say) the single largest topic area at over 20% of articles,

1182: 1088: 1036: 1017: 806: 785:

Too grand to be useful. After eading all the comments above, I tested the pages with

753: 662: 409: 405: 258: 1383:

A list won't help users locate something either if they don't know how to spell it.

1204:

must note that while LoPbN's template-namespace infrastructure is also significant:

1878: 1715: 1613: 1508: 1375: 1027: 894: 855: 786: 471: 452:

agree that it's certainly unmaintained, almost certainly unmaintainable, and fully

421: 56: 1600:. The category system, however, can't (at the moment) produce anything like that. 1116:

as hopelessly unmaintainable. Spend your time adding to the encyclopedia instead.

1075:

per nominator. Waiting for someone to nominate this. Didn't want to do it myself.

435: 337: 2435:(2) Compare the LoPbN list with the list of approx 380,000 articles transcluding 575:

Of course this is harder to maintain. The pages required to host this list fill

222:

This MfD/AfD process involves procedural irregularities too extensive to either

2187: 2167: 2163: 2151: 2115: 1994: 1986: 1962: 1950: 1898: 1004: 961: 949: 881: 833: 805:. That's six missing references found in less than six minutes. Unmaintainable. 765: 512: 2260:

guarantee that I've caught them all even now. Obviously, disambiguation pages

497:

At last guess-ta-ment I believe there were over 3 “Billion” individuals. Does

226:

tolerate in light of their potential for functioning as de facto precedents, or

2409: 2240: 2224: 2171: 2123: 2111: 2107: 2099: 1990: 1954: 1946: 1926: 1918: 1902: 1894: 1886: 1870: 1862: 1434: 1254: 1185:, for the following reasons that AFAIK would each make this case unique on WP: 1167: 457: 244: 77: 2512:, and use this new functionality to improve Knowledge's disambiguation pages. 1809:. In fact, the A. W. Fraser I want is the oil contractor from the 1890s (see 1200:

for years, from soon after the concept (of WikiProjects) was brought forward.

229:

enumerate clearly in the time i have left to edit in the next 24 hours or so.

2159: 2147: 2119: 2103: 1978: 1970: 1890: 1866: 873: 498: 262: 1227:

The quantity of content and effort devoted to the tree in good-faith edits.

582:

of Special:PrefixIndex. And it's terribly incomplete. Few if any of the

76:. (NB: As a commenter below, I didn't close the DRV; I'm just noting it.) 2248: 2232: 2228: 2220: 2183: 2155: 2143: 2139: 2127: 2095: 1974: 1966: 1958: 1906: 2430:(1a) Preserve the annotations for possible use in disambiguation pages. 2244: 2216: 2179: 2135: 2091: 612: 563:

And the claim that this is original research seems utterly unfounded.

400:

The scope of these lists is about 25% of Knowledge, and if that's not

1790: 1240:

areas), bcz human knowledge is added to and structured by people, and

869: 615:

is useful despite being seriously incomplete and not very well done.

2472:

on their talk page, plus an attempt at DEFAULTSORT or pipe-sorting.

2356:

in the list - an issue raised by Serpent's Choice. The example was

2252: 2586:

Automated DEFAULTSORT or pipe-sorting is difficult in many cases.

2427:(1) Turn LoPbN into a single master list, in alphabetical order. 1681:: If this page were deleted, would we go through and add all the 1209:

Template:List of people by name exhaustive page-index (sectioned)

2608:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1798: 1045:

blanket protection for all FAs; that's just imprecise language.

176:

It might put a big load on the servers, but I'm going to ask if

2551:

One possibility is to create categories for the sections, e.g.

1483:. Way too long to be any use to anyone in finding a biography. 2069:

Template talk:WPBiography#Category with all the articles in it

2022: 1997:

itself links to a disambiguation page? LoPbN is not working.

1841: 1686: 2541:

The annotations to the LoPbN lists are difficult to transfer.

1793:

and see if the A. W. Fraser I want is there. I could look at

239:

Knowledge talk:Miscellany for deletion/List of people by name

1467:? Surely someone, plus a computer, can do this? It can't be 1457:

list from the category system and/or the pages transcluding

1694: 1690: 1211:

by (almost always) a minimum of three name-bearing pages,

889:

The problem is that you will not necessarily find what's

2255:

were all missed by LoPbN, my first pass through Google,

1697:? That could easily solve the problem of manual upkeep. 1582:"We could, in theory, use a bot to slap everything from 2365: 2086: 1850:

without looking at the page being proposed for deletion

1753: 1593: 1335: 841:

We could, in theory, use a bot to slap everything from

815: 579: 576: 333: 329: 325: 69: 2031:

structure of WP's sorry-state disambiguation system.

1192:

A mandate for such a page that goes back further than

1811:

History of the petroleum industry in Canada, part one

663: 2592:

How much bot programming and running time is needed?

2075:and use the two-letter index there (produced using 1612:- too much effort for something marginally useful. 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2618:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1449:- so, is anyone up to the challenge of making a 252:going on?(!) Your comment below reads, in part: 237:Please keep the discussion of these measures on 1848:(one of the pages proposed for deletion). Now, 1417:per nom, kinboyk and Amarkov, among others. -- 255:AFAIK would each make this case unique on WP... 2215:As an aside, even that didn't get them all. 257:Well, procedural violations are contested on 8: 1648:could be retired in favor of a reference to 190:. Then that category can be created and the 2482:(5) Design a new (three-letter) version of 2176:I wonder how this list compares with yours? 1207:_ _ a couple hundred of them are lk'd from 1035:Really? I didn't know FAs were exempt... -- 2589:How much time and volunteer effort needed? 2531:This new system can be easily maintained. 1846:List of people by name: Frf-Frz#Fru - Fry 2455:on their talk page have that tag added. 2338:I should note, of course, that neither 148:? The closest we have at the moment is 1739:No, I meant all persons with the same 803:Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury 164:Category:Unassessed biography articles 150:Category:Biography articles by quality 1807:List of people by name: Fra-Frd#Frase 594:Chaplains of the United States Senate 7: 2190:were not on your list or in LoPbN). 1097: 501:have enough space to list everyone. 2553:Category:Surnames beginning with F 1691:Category:Surnames beginning with F 1319:limitations of the category system 982:per nom and per Serpent's Choice. 528:That's what the search bar is for 24: 2602:Please put general comments here. 2178:(I only get three bonus points - 1803:Google A. W. Fraser and Knowledge 1321:. See what I did in the blurb at 1102: 1089: 845:onto a list. But that would be a 18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion 1543:per nominater, too unpractical. 1092: 434: 110:Dictionary of National Biography 2362:List of people by name: Mch-Mcz 1198:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 966: 963: 2494:Category:Biographical articles 2477:Category:Biographical articles 2460:Category:Biographical articles 2204:Category:Biographical articles 1507:it all as per above comments. 1133: 359:, it was kept on grounds that 355:, they need manual upkeep. In 178:Category:Biographical articles 146:Category:Biographical articles 1: 1141: 44:The result of the debate was 2386:Knowledge:Requested articles 2044:you find those ones anyway? 2006:LOL! You get <counts: --> 1453:list from these pages and a 1145: 1138: 2313:Van (disambiguation)#People 1162:Talk:List of people by name 2635: 1799:searching for A. W. Fraser 1650:List of people by name: Wh 2462:tag to all articles with 2423:My proposed solution is: 2315:. I was recently editing 2311:Another example is here: 1695:Category:People named Fry 1598:List of people by name: X 278:is for. --User:Ceyockey ( 276:Knowledge:Deletion review 2611:Please do not modify it. 2573:07:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2560:02:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2521:00:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2413:15:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2398:00:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2373:12:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2347:12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2334:09:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2297:07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2287:07:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2270:05:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2211:00:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 2063:21:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2049:14:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2036:13:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2013:12:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 2002:10:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1857:08:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1836:03:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1822:02:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1815:Alexander William Fraser 1774:02:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 1761:14:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1748:01:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1732:01:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1702:01:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1672:01:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1662:01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1633:20:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1617:14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1605:13:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1573:12:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1551:11:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1536:11:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 1524:20:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1512:16:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1500:14:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1488:11:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1476:09:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1442:07:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1422:02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1408:08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1379:02:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1354:02:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1330:01:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1303:00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1288:00:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 1276:16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 1262:21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1175:21:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1152:21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1121:20:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1109:19:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1080:18:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1068:17:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1053:17:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1040:17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1031:16:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1021:17:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 1011:16:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 987:16:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 975:15:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 953:15:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 933:08:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 903:15:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 885:15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 864:15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 837:13:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 823:11:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 810:11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 799:Richard Neville (writer) 795:Richard Neville (singer) 778:10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 757:04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 738:00:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC) 708:06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 694:04:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 672:03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 654:02:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 623:03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 606:02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 571:02:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 559:02:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 544:02:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 519:15:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 506:02:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 480:00:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 466:00:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) 447:17:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 430:14:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 413:14:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 392:13:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 288:23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 266:10:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 205:01:38, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 172:01:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC) 135:23:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 117:14:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC) 81:15:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC) 63:17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 2458:(3) Use a bot to add a 2378:Comment about red-links 645:recommend deleting old 2566:Fry Family (Chocolate) 2546:Additional suggestions 2516:Please discuss below. 2388:bin. --User:Ceyockey ( 2073:Category:Living people 682:anti-vandalism efforts 300:List of people by name 142:Category:Living people 88:List of people by name 2262:as an entire category 1844:and note the link to 1805:, or I could look at 1712:Arnold Schwarzenegger 1580:- Amarkov says above 592:are included, or the 363:and that some people 2340:Van (disambiguation) 2326:Van (disambiguation) 1983:Sherry Edmundson Fry 1943:Joseph Storrs Fry II 1718:; on the flip side, 1590:Category:Earthquakes 1323:Category:Earthquakes 357:previous discussions 218:Discussion Suspended 1685:, for instance, to 1338:really saying that 1883:Cecil Roderick Fry 1766:Responding Comment 1743:, not first name. 1737:Responding Comment 1707:Responding Comment 1471:difficult can it? 713:responding comment 617:Christopher Parham 565:Christopher Parham 553:Christopher Parham 2581:Possible problems 2419:Proposed solution 2395: 2191: 2175: 1993:or the fact that 1939:Joseph Storrs Fry 1797:, or I could try 1729: 1659: 1571: 901: 862: 735: 691: 478: 428: 285: 132: 2626: 2613: 2597:General comments 2511: 2507:largeCategoryTOC 2505: 2491: 2487:largeCategoryTOC 2485: 2471: 2465: 2454: 2448: 2444: 2438: 2389: 2317:Paul van Somer I 2294:Serpent's Choice 2267:Serpent's Choice 2201: 2195: 2177: 2090: 2084: 2080:largeCategoryTOC 2078: 2060:Serpent's Choice 2033:Serpent's Choice 1999:Serpent's Choice 1915:James Barnet Fry 1723: 1653: 1565: 1466: 1460: 1404: 1402: 1400: 1398: 1396: 1347: 1341: 1285:The Storm Surfer 1149: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1132: 1106: 1098: 1094: 1091: 968: 965: 929: 927: 925: 923: 921: 897: 858: 820:Serpent's Choice 729: 705:Serpent's Choice 685: 665: 651:Serpent's Choice 603:Serpent's Choice 541: 534: 474: 444:The Sunshine Man 438: 424: 388: 386: 384: 382: 380: 341: 323: 279: 199: 195:largeCategoryTOC 193: 189: 183: 180:can be added to 161: 155: 126: 107: 101: 59: 55: 48:, defaulting to 34: 2634: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2616:deletion review 2609: 2599: 2583: 2548: 2538: 2528: 2509: 2503: 2489: 2483: 2469: 2463: 2452: 2446: 2442: 2436: 2421: 2199: 2193: 2082: 2076: 1935:Joseph Fry, Jr. 1683:Fry, Firstnames 1584:Category:People 1464: 1458: 1394: 1392: 1390: 1388: 1386: 1345: 1339: 1314:Category:People 1194:WP:WikiProjects 1148: 1130: 1105: 996:countless times 919: 917: 915: 913: 911: 882:Smerdis of Tlön 843:Category:People 834:Smerdis of Tlön 537: 530: 464: 378: 376: 374: 372: 370: 314: 298: 197: 191: 187: 181: 159: 153: 105: 99: 92: 57: 53: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2632: 2630: 2621: 2620: 2604: 2603: 2598: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2590: 2587: 2582: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2537: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2527: 2524: 2514: 2513: 2500: 2497: 2480: 2473: 2456: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2420: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2360:, linked from 2358:Aaron McKinney 2351: 2350: 2349: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2087:the Fs section 1911:Jacob Fry, Jr. 1875:Birkett D. Fry 1824: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1635: 1619: 1607: 1575: 1553: 1538: 1526: 1521:Carlossuarez46 1514: 1502: 1490: 1478: 1444: 1424: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1306: 1305: 1291: 1290: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1241: 1234: 1228: 1225: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1215: 1212: 1201: 1187: 1186: 1178: 1177: 1165: 1154: 1146: 1123: 1111: 1103: 1082: 1070: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1024: 989: 977: 955: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 878:Psammetichus I 827: 826: 825: 791:Neville Cardus 780: 759: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 697: 696: 674: 656: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 546: 523: 522: 521: 484: 483: 482: 460: 449: 432: 415: 402:indiscriminate 348: 347: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 256: 231: 230: 227: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 208: 207: 91: 85: 84: 83: 65: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2631: 2619: 2617: 2612: 2606: 2605: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2591: 2588: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2549: 2545: 2540: 2539: 2536:Disadvantages 2535: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2523: 2522: 2519: 2508: 2501: 2498: 2495: 2488: 2481: 2478: 2474: 2468: 2461: 2457: 2451: 2441: 2434: 2429: 2428: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2418: 2414: 2411: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2394: 2393: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2352: 2348: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2327: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2298: 2295: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2271: 2268: 2263: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2209: 2205: 2198: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2088: 2085:) to look at 2081: 2074: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2034: 2029: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923:Joan Mary Fry 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1828: 1825: 1823: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1801:, or I could 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1785: 1775: 1772: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1728: 1727: 1721: 1720:Johnny Mathis 1717: 1713: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1677: 1673: 1670: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1651: 1647: 1646:William White 1643: 1639: 1636: 1634: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1620: 1618: 1615: 1611: 1608: 1606: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1585: 1579: 1576: 1574: 1569: 1564: 1563: 1557: 1554: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1542: 1539: 1537: 1534: 1530: 1527: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1491: 1489: 1486: 1485:Sam Blacketer 1482: 1479: 1477: 1474: 1470: 1463: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1445: 1443: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1425: 1423: 1420: 1416: 1413: 1409: 1406: 1405: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1355: 1352: 1344: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1315: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1301: 1296: 1293: 1292: 1289: 1286: 1281: 1277: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1263: 1260: 1256: 1249: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1232: 1231: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1169: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1153: 1150: 1140: 1136: 1127: 1124: 1122: 1119: 1115: 1112: 1110: 1107: 1099: 1095: 1086: 1083: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1071: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1054: 1051: 1048: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1038: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1029: 1025: 1022: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1009: 1006: 1002: 997: 993: 990: 988: 985: 984:wikipediatrix 981: 978: 976: 973: 970: 969: 959: 956: 954: 951: 947: 944: 934: 931: 930: 906: 905: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 887: 886: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 866: 865: 861: 857: 853: 848: 844: 840: 839: 838: 835: 831: 828: 824: 821: 817: 813: 812: 811: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 781: 779: 776: 773: 770: 767: 763: 760: 758: 755: 750: 747: 746: 739: 734: 733: 727: 723: 719: 714: 711: 710: 709: 706: 701: 700: 699: 698: 695: 690: 689: 683: 678: 675: 673: 670: 668: 666: 660: 657: 655: 652: 648: 643: 639: 635: 632: 624: 621: 618: 614: 609: 608: 607: 604: 600: 595: 591: 588: 585: 581: 578: 574: 573: 572: 569: 566: 562: 561: 560: 557: 554: 550: 547: 545: 542: 540: 535: 533: 527: 524: 520: 517: 514: 509: 508: 507: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 468: 467: 463: 459: 455: 450: 448: 445: 441: 437: 433: 431: 427: 423: 419: 416: 414: 411: 407: 403: 399: 396: 395: 394: 393: 390: 389: 366: 362: 358: 354: 345: 339: 335: 331: 327: 322: 318: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 296: 289: 284: 283: 277: 272: 269: 268: 267: 264: 260: 253: 250: 249: 248: 247: 246: 240: 235: 228: 225: 224: 223: 220: 219: 206: 203: 196: 186: 179: 175: 174: 173: 170: 165: 158: 151: 147: 143: 138: 137: 136: 131: 130: 123: 120: 119: 118: 115: 111: 104: 97: 94: 93: 89: 86: 82: 79: 75: 71: 70:DRV overturns 68: 67: 66: 64: 61: 60: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2610: 2607: 2557:PaladinWhite 2552: 2515: 2422: 2404: 2390: 2377: 2366:deletion log 2353: 2320: 2261: 2256: 2055: 2041: 2027: 2018: 1879:Caroline Fry 1849: 1831: 1826: 1795:A. W. Fraser 1786: 1771:PaladinWhite 1765: 1745:PaladinWhite 1740: 1736: 1724: 1716:Bill Clinton 1706: 1699:PaladinWhite 1682: 1678: 1654: 1637: 1621: 1609: 1586:onto a list" 1581: 1577: 1560: 1555: 1540: 1528: 1516: 1504: 1492: 1480: 1468: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1426: 1414: 1385: 1372:the deadline 1362: 1334:Strange. Is 1318: 1310:Keep for now 1309: 1294: 1237: 1157: 1128:as per nom. 1125: 1113: 1084: 1072: 991: 979: 962: 957: 945: 910: 890: 851: 846: 829: 787:Neville Duke 782: 761: 748: 730: 712: 686: 681: 676: 658: 646: 642:this sublist 633: 598: 548: 538: 531: 525: 494: 490: 486: 453: 439: 417: 397: 369: 352: 349: 344:View AfD log 280: 270: 243:Unsigned by 242: 236: 232: 221: 217: 216: 127: 121: 95: 90:and subpages 73: 49: 46:No consensus 45: 43: 31: 28: 2492:for use on 2475:(4) Create 2467:WPBiography 2450:WPBiography 2440:WPBiography 2197:WPBiography 2188:Russell Fry 2168:Stephen Fry 2164:Shirley Fry 2152:Russell Fry 2116:Charles Fry 1995:William Fry 1987:Russell Fry 1963:Maxwell Fry 1951:Margery Fry 1899:Douglas Fry 1813:), and not 1462:WPBiography 1343:WPBiography 1047:Gavia immer 992:Strong keep 971: 722:Willa-Willh 703:articles? 661:, per nom. 361:it's useful 185:WPBiography 157:WPBiography 103:WPBiography 2570:Carcharoth 2526:Advantages 2518:Carcharoth 2392:talk to me 2370:Carcharoth 2344:Carcharoth 2331:Carcharoth 2284:Carcharoth 2241:Leslie Fry 2235:, another 2225:Dustin Fry 2208:Carcharoth 2172:Taylor Fry 2132:Jordan Fry 2124:Hayden Fry 2112:Chance Fry 2108:Bertha Fry 2100:Arthur Fry 2046:Carcharoth 2010:Carcharoth 1991:Taylor Fry 1955:Martin Fry 1947:Joshua Fry 1931:Jordan Fry 1927:Johnny Fry 1919:Jeremy Fry 1903:Edward Fry 1895:Daniel Fry 1887:Chance Fry 1871:Bertha Fry 1863:Arthur Fry 1854:Carcharoth 1819:Carcharoth 1758:Carcharoth 1726:talk to me 1669:Carcharoth 1656:talk to me 1626:Carcharoth 1602:Carcharoth 1473:Carcharoth 1431:Carcharoth 1419:Iamunknown 1368:notability 1351:Carcharoth 1327:Carcharoth 1118:Punkmorten 1077:Horvat Den 1001:discussion 732:talk to me 688:talk to me 353:categories 282:talk to me 245:User:Jerzy 202:Carcharoth 169:Carcharoth 144:, why not 129:talk to me 114:Carcharoth 2354:Red-links 2160:Scott Fry 2148:Peter Fry 2120:Colin Fry 2104:Barry Fry 2028:literally 1979:Scott Fry 1971:Peter Fry 1891:Colin Fry 1867:Barry Fry 1754:this edit 1630:CarolGray 1533:Petros471 1427:Weak Keep 1238:important 1224:evidence. 1087:per nom. 874:leukocyte 816:June 2003 499:Knowledge 2249:Paul Fry 2237:John Fry 2233:John Fry 2229:Fred Fry 2221:Doug Fry 2184:Nina Fry 2156:Ryan Fry 2144:Nina Fry 2140:Nick Fry 2128:Hedy Fry 2096:Adam Fry 1975:Ryan Fry 1967:Nick Fry 1959:Matt Fry 1907:Hedy Fry 1545:Garion96 1300:JayHenry 1273:kingboyk 1037:kingboyk 1018:kingboyk 807:Emeraude 754:Resolute 664:Gobonobo 503:Shoessss 410:kingboyk 2245:Nan Fry 2217:Don Fry 2180:Abi Fry 2136:Ken Fry 2092:Abi Fry 1832:Sophia™ 1787:Comment 1741:surname 1679:Comment 1638:Comment 1578:Comment 1509:Bearian 1447:Comment 1439:Ford MF 1433:'s and 1376:Rustavo 1218:pages.) 1156:Strong 1028:Slavlin 895:Amarkov 856:Amarkov 852:prefers 762:Comment 677:Comment 638:WP:LIST 613:history 590:consuls 584:ancient 472:Amarkov 456:able. 422:Amarkov 365:like it 317:protect 312:history 271:Comment 122:Comment 96:Request 2405:Delete 2364:. The 2251:, and 2026:won't 1827:Delete 1791:Fraser 1624:- per 1614:Renata 1610:Delete 1556:Delete 1548:(talk) 1541:Delete 1529:Delete 1505:Delete 1493:Delete 1481:Delete 1455:single 1451:single 1415:Delete 1183:WP:VPP 1126:Delete 1114:Delete 1085:Delete 1073:Delete 1050:(talk) 1008:(talk) 1005:Slyguy 980:Delete 958:Delete 950:Addhoc 946:Delete 876:" or " 872:" or " 870:quahog 783:Delete 749:Delete 659:Delete 634:Delete 620:(talk) 568:(talk) 556:(talk) 532:ROASTY 526:Delete 516:(talk) 513:Slyguy 495:Delete 491:Delete 487:Delete 454:delete 440:Delete 418:Delete 406:WP:NOT 398:Delete 321:delete 259:WP:DRV 74:delete 2410:Xoloz 2382:LoPbN 2253:W Fry 2056:still 1642:LoPbN 1568:Help! 1435:Jerzy 1387:: --> 1255:Jerzy 1168:Jerzy 1134:flash 1131:Lemon 1023:(e/c) 912:: --> 891:there 718:Dj-Dn 599:never 587:Roman 580:pages 539:TOAST 458:Xtifr 371:: --> 338:views 330:watch 326:links 78:Xoloz 58:demon 16:< 2321:vast 2186:and 1714:and 1622:Keep 1594:here 1517:Keep 1497:fchd 1469:that 1429:per 1403:< 1363:Keep 1336:this 1295:Keep 1158:Keep 1093:Love 1090:Lara 928:< 899:moo! 860:moo! 847:much 830:Keep 724:and 720:and 549:Keep 476:moo! 462:tälk 426:moo! 387:< 334:logs 308:talk 304:edit 263:El_C 50:keep 2257:and 2042:did 2023:Fry 1842:Fry 1693:or 1687:Fry 1562:Guy 1147:(c) 1065:Doc 967:yan 964:Ark 726:San 577:two 342:– ( 72:to 2568:? 2510:}} 2504:{{ 2490:}} 2484:{{ 2470:}} 2464:{{ 2453:}} 2447:{{ 2443:}} 2437:{{ 2396:) 2329:. 2247:, 2243:, 2239:, 2231:, 2227:, 2223:, 2219:, 2200:}} 2194:{{ 2182:, 2170:, 2166:, 2162:, 2158:, 2154:, 2150:, 2146:, 2142:, 2138:, 2134:, 2130:, 2126:, 2122:, 2118:, 2114:, 2110:, 2106:, 2102:, 2098:, 2094:, 2083:}} 2077:{{ 2019:is 1989:, 1985:, 1981:, 1977:, 1973:, 1969:, 1965:, 1961:, 1957:, 1953:, 1949:, 1945:, 1941:, 1937:, 1933:, 1929:, 1925:, 1921:, 1917:, 1913:, 1909:, 1905:, 1901:, 1897:, 1893:, 1889:, 1885:, 1881:, 1877:, 1873:, 1869:, 1865:, 1730:) 1660:) 1628:- 1465:}} 1459:{{ 1346:}} 1340:{{ 1253:-- 1166:-- 818:. 801:, 797:, 793:, 736:) 692:) 647:or 511:-- 493:- 489:- 336:| 332:| 328:| 324:| 319:| 315:| 310:| 306:| 286:) 241:. 198:}} 192:{{ 188:}} 182:{{ 160:}} 154:{{ 133:) 106:}} 100:{{ 52:. 2496:. 2479:. 2174:. 1570:) 1566:( 1401:t 1399:n 1397:a 1395:i 1393:d 1391:a 1389:R 1259:t 1257:• 1172:t 1170:• 1142:/ 1104:C 1100:/ 926:t 924:n 922:a 920:i 918:d 916:a 914:R 775:i 772:m 769:e 766:R 404:( 385:t 383:n 381:a 379:i 377:d 375:a 373:R 346:) 340:) 302:( 54:^

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.