Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 12

638:

was absolutely clear the "keep" side had no basis for its argument but the admin never bothered to actually read those arguments and just did it as a vote. I'm not going to start making a list, but I've seen good closing admin and I've seen bad closing admin. I've seen closing admin who actually read the arguments and the article and even with a majority "keep" remove the article because they've recognized the keep side had no basis for their point. I've also seen closing admin completely ignore the arguments where you have delete people saying "it violates this policy, this policy, this policy, fails for inclusions here here and here" and the keep people saying "I like this article, its pretty", and the closing admin claims no concensus and thats it. By not giving this criterion any teeth that means we now have to turn around and submit this to a third process (where usually good sense prevails) of deletion review. I see no reason why we can take the position that non-notable or unsourced information can be immediately removed from an article and put the burden on the person who wants it included to prove its worthyness, yet have a non-notable article have to potentially go through 3 processes to be removed because we're worried there might have been some notability to the subject. As I've pointed out some admin have taken this carefulness to the extreme, by saying even vague claims should be taken to AfD even if its obvious the claim woudln't meet the guidelines anyway. Also if the subject really IS notable, the original creator should have no issue providing that or even if they don't want to, a notable individual should have more than one person out there who wants to come to wikipedia to write about them.--

279:

an online resource for the OBE that could be easily verified, and if not, then yes it could be sent to AfD if the assertion seemed plausible, and if thats the assertion the article was based on. Maybe its not a difference of wikiphilosophies so much as I'm not completely explaining what I have in mind here. As I stated below I'm not saying we require 10 references to even consider keeping an article. I'm saying that that if the article makes a vague claim make a small effort to check up on it first, google it or ask the creator for clarification, etc. Explain the need for clarification of the notability. Don't err so far on the side of caution. if they make a specific claim, i.e. "Sara won the United States Open in 1983", again make a cursory attempt to check up on it, however I think there should be a stipulation that if the person who puts it up for speedy or AfD if the admin removes the speedy, can prove the claim false, i.e. they find the official website which says the winner was indeed Larry, it should be removed on the spot, rather than sitting it out in AfD. I'm not saying every unsubstantiated claim should be removed on the spot. Claims that are vague and have no substantiation should be looked at more critically than specific claims. I could write an article about a guy and make the assertion that he's an author and runs a nationwide company. An admin might turn around and say "Hey thats an assertion, take it to AfD" but a 2 second google search may have revealed the book was self-published and the company consits of him, his dog, and a potted plant he found in a dumpster.--

151:

respected individual or the individual has written some books, without really citing the books themselves, who the publisher is (to show they're not self-published), and if its questioned the article should be deleted. On regular articles if content is added without proper citation it can and is often removed until reasons are given for its inclusion in the article. I see no reason it should be any different for created articles. Obviously easily verifiably famous people don't need citations (though likely most articles have already been created), but anyone who is borderline should have some proper assertion of notability per WP:BIO or WP:BAND that can easily be verified by any editor and if it can't then send it to the grave until such a time that the person wants to properly establish notability. As for wording...most admins should be familiar with WP:BIO and WP:BAND so something along the lines of "

648:

bud here. I'm not saying admins should automatically delete any article they see with db-bio or db-band on it, just take more care in ensuring the claim is remotely plausible before removing it and telling people to take it to AfD. I'm not saying we need 10 references and a dna sample to keep an article, but the assertion should be notable, it should be plausible, and if you can't verify the claim via a quick google search, perhaps ask for a little more info from either the original author or the person who put the tag on it. Heck maybe even a new tag to the effect of "This speedy deletion is currently under review" if you need a few minutes to verify the info. We're not in a race and if handling the article takes a few minutes of multi-tasking rather than a few seconds, I doubt wikipedia is going to collapse. On the other hand it ensures we're not needlessly shoving articles off to AfD.--

328:

created any further information to be added the burden goes on that person who wants it included. That shift isn't explained here anywhere at all. I also don't think the admin needs to research each and every case. Why not have the person nominating for speedy explain in full detail the reasoning as to why the individual or band isn't really notable. The admin reads the assertion in the article (which they need to do anyway) then reads the counter-argument. If it makes sense delete it and leave a template inviting the individual to read the guidelines, ensure the individual/group is notable, and resubmit it with a proper assertion per those guidelines. It might take a few more seconds per speedy tag for them to read the counter-argument, but I'm sure someone could whip up an automated tool that would delete the page and automatically leave a template on the original author's talk page.--

614:

made no assertion per those guidelines, but there was "an assertion of notability" (even though the notability was far from enough for an article here), and thus an admin sent it to AfD (where it was later deleted). However, I've seen more than one AfD where an article which clearly doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion was kept here because a few interested invididuals were able to muddle the discussion into "no concensus" and the closing admin didn't bother to look at the validity of the arguments and just said "Oh there is an equal amount on both sides give or take, lets just keep it". You essentially have a formula for getting an article kept here by at first making a vague claim to notability then getting a handful of buddies together (as most AfDs don't get massive attention) and muddling the discussion and hoping you get an admin who just tallies it up rather than reads it.--

3523:(will be MFD'ing them all)), and they are generaly left alone due to our traditional respect for the "privacy" of userpages, indeed advertisements created in the main namespace are often even moved to userpsace rather nominated for deletion! This seems to have resulted in userpsace becoming a "free for all" where people can drop theyr google bombs and plug theyr products in relative peace. Such userpages don't stand a snowball's chance in hell to survive a MFD debate, and a few bold admins are already quietly deleting such pages with no great controversy, so IMHO we should simply make it "official". The only problem I can see is wording it properly so it's neither easy to game nor too wide as to result in "legitemate" userpages getting deleted because they included a link to some commercial website. -- 228:

hand removing articles without a proper and credible assertion to notability allows a number of things to happen. The new user is introduced to policy, if this was just a junk article created, its removed quicker and it doesn't have to sit on prod, AfD, and possibly deletion review. If it wasn't a junk article and this was a genuine attempt to create a useful article, it gives the admin, or someone else the opportunity to interact with a new user, welcome them, explain the way things work, and mentor them a bit with the creation of the article. I certainly have no problem doing that, and when I tag articles for deletion, or put them up for AfD, if the person is receptive to that, I often end up discussing how some of the policies like notability and verifiability work.--

155:". (I also think A7 should be expanded to cover any catagory that has accepted notability guidelines, but that is probably another discusison). I don't think this is unreasonable and I don't the admins should err on the side of caution. Don't get rude about it, but politely point them to the notability guidelines and ask them to resubmit the article per those guidelines. If they can't be bothered than the article probably wouldn't have been that good or useful anyway. If the subject is notable, it shouldn't be a huge issue to get those references. If need be, I could help rewrite the nn-warn template to try and be polite, welcoming, and informative but get the point across that we don't take stubs about every piece of information on the planet or your pet project.-- 3320:

by being on the servers for a week; it is likely to be newcomers that fall foul of it (as, unlike experienced contributors, they don't know that inserting a rather flimsy claim to notability will avoid the article being tagged under A7); the inclusions and exclusions are ridiculous (I can make an article about my pet, my house, or my imaginary friend under a strict reading of the rule but not one about myself); and I'm guessing a lot of the potential A7 deletions end up at AFD anyway, because nobody is quite sure where to draw the line on the notability claims. By the way, I'm pretty sure we can change the rules if we don't like them (otherwise this discussion is a waste of time!).

760:

worked 0% of the time, because within minutes the original author or anonymous IP removes the prod. I've only had one or two prods last more than an hour, and those were removed the next day. However I would say 90-95% of those articles do eventually end up deleted, but its always by AfD. That doesn't mean prod is effective or the system works. It means a lot of articles went to AfD that probably didn't need to as most newpage AfDs I've done have been complete slamdunks. When you get that many AfDs that basically just steamroll through the 5 days I think you need to turn around and say "Do these articles really need to be getting here?"--

734:

talking about here. If someone put that information in an article, I could remove it instantly and ask for a source. Yet as an article, we want to coddle it and err well on the side of caution. I see no reason for that. It would have taken what... 30 seconds to leave a message on the author's talk page and say "Can you substantiate that claim?" and put a "Speedy Deletion under Review tag" on the page. If he can't substantiate it in a reasonable timeframe (say 24 hours, because he was likely just there) remove it. With 66 members unless its the illuminati's private message forum, the chances of it being notable are non-existent. --

570:

band and not properly asserting notability and starting an article about a group from the 1800s and not properly asserting notability. Any current band/person should have a google prescence of some sort. Its not a blanket criteria for all articles, common sense has to come into this and obviously its likely to be a lot more difficult to prove notability about a 200 year old music trio, than the latest garabge band. If someone makes an article about an older more historic band that send it to AfD, that one isn't obvious, if someone makes an article about a current day band, and they can't back it up, toss it unless they can.--

1095:

free alternative" or something similar. The thing is, because of CSD I3, we basically reject entirely any images that would be free for Knowledge (XXG) to use, but which are not "free+" in the sense that they aren't GFDL-compatible. So, what if an image was being used under a fair use claim, and a "with-permission" alternative existed, although not a "free+" one? It seems to me, that would invalidate the fair use claim, as an alternative exists that would be free to use. If this is the case, we need to either reconsider I3 or our fair use policy.

3206:

on AfD, or in some cases are just deleted peremptorily by admins where they vaguely fall into the CSD criteria. So, the question is: what is a good, well-defined, well-worded criterion that would include the things that are always deleted at AfD, but not admit the deletion of legitimate articles. So, for example, if Bill Smith the insurance salesman makes an article about himself and also an article about his personal website, which happens to have some insurance tips, why shouldn't the website article be deleted along with his person article? —

2878:, or whatever you wish to call it, but that is neither consistent nor efficient because many of them end up on RfD for a few days. An actual policy provision means that we wouldn't need rouge admins sniping these off of RfD; those finding them could simply tag them as CSD in the first place. An advantage to this is we would have less reason for these awkward pseudospeedy deletions: admins would be less likely to hastily delete a contested RfD nomination by mistake if they had less uncontested RfD nominations like these to content with. 810:

into getting an article kept here for about 2 weeks or more depending on backlog in AfD and Deletion Review. And that doesn't say 90% of prods are deleted, he included articles that went to AfD (the first post is a personal guess based on an observation). But doesn't really give any stats on how many went to AfD. I could go through the process of testing the theory to see if that is accurate or if quite a few less prods do survive, but I'm on vacation, and I'm sure there is someone around who's much better at stats than I am.--

2051:"Recreated by a different user" is easy to get around - think sock puppets. Is there actually a specific case where this has been a problem? I've got to think that if there is consensus among the editors of article Xyz that, though six months ago the redirect was deleted, it is now a meaningful redirect, and the conversation is referenced on the redirect page, no administrator is going to delete it. On the other hand, having a particular waiting period set out for recreation is only going to 4328:

tagged as a hoax and then during the AFD discussion, discovered to be a real though obscure historical person or event. These questions need more than a single set of eyes before making the decision. Remember that speedy-deletions are deliberately limited to those cases which are so obvious that any reasonable editor will immediately reach the same decision and without the need to do any research beyond reading the article. Speedy-deletion candidates really should be that obvious.

840:

get muddled around here for 2 weeks. Something that likely should have been nipped in the bud if the admin evaluating the speedy had of been a little more critical. What I'm really saying here, is if they make a claim to notability and it doesn't sound plausible (i.e. Larry's Cleft Lip is regarded by many as the premier country-death metal band in Alabama) maybe ask for some clarification before tossing it off to AfD. Why waste 5 days when you could probably clear the article now?

1460:) are actually quite good, and I can only object to them "on principle", which is of course a POV objection and therefore meaningless. I want to use ((PrSpam)) for newpage patrol, where all sorts of junk articles of the ilk are written (2 days ago I cam across 6 of those in a row, and got annoyed with typing in rote justifications using the ((prod|reason)) (for articles with at least some potential) and/or ((delete|reason)) (for articles consisting of one sentence and a link). 4064:: I thought it was a hoax by someone who's made some vandal-like edits in the past. It turns out that, even though the book isn't listed at Amazon, on the author's site, or anywhere else, it IS previewed on the final page of the most recent book, something I was unlikely to notice anyitme in the next week. If I had speedied it, it would have been a very dumb mistake. Instead, I took it to AfD, a source was found, and the article should be kept. -- 31: 301:

Jin Zhao. (I just made up the names). Yet notability is asserted and it would have to sit on AfD for 5 days. That's a pretty obvious case, and I'm sure some admin when presented with the evidence would speedy it, but you're shifting the way wikipedia works from inside the article and article creation. I see no reason these should be different at all. The same rules for inclusion that exist in the article should exist for its creation.--

744:

back to defend or explain their position. Therefore, I did not actually see anyone stating what you would call non-consensus. I do not see how your arguments rebutt what the others said either. Basing your argument on reducing a 5 day prod process which is very passive, and works 90% of the time--in exchange for deleting things which people here are obviously questioning, does not seem to be very productive.

2070:

could therefore be challenged on DRV, no matter how old it might be... although common sense says that in 'obvious' cases, DRV should only be consulted when someone objects to the restoration by requesting that the new redirect be deleted under G4. In that case, you've got an old RfD result that is, essentially, being disputed again over allegations of new information; I don't see how it could go anywhere

2938:, etc) needs to be discussed and not speedied anyway. You don't want an administrator having to have some kind of technical knowledge or knowledge about the subject to decide whether the quoted portion makes it a legitimate redirect or not. If anyone with no knowledge of the subject can see that it is a nonsensical name, then it should be speedied. If they can't, then it needs to go to RFD. 1265:, etc). Of course it isn't, because admins are able to exercise their judgement and can tell the difference between an attack page that calls someone an arsehole and a neutral biography that happens to be about an arsehole. In the same way we are perfectly capable of telling the difference between a legitimate 'evidence collecting' page or a work-in-progress Arbcom case and an attack page. -- 4126:: "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." If none of the material is sourced, it should be speediable. (It's up to the administrator if they want to find sources or not.) If they aren't there and the nominator can't find any, it should be speediable; including the example given by 4400:

when I found a different website which described what I was looking for I would create a talk page for the notable article that does not yet exist, post the link, and give a one or two sentence description why the article should exist. Is this Kosher? I've asked this question all over the place, generally people tell me yes, but I think I should ask again here :)

3985:. This article asserts importance, so under current rules, can't be speedy deleted. However, it's sources are either non-existent or don't mention the person at all. No hits on Google. Why doesn't an obviously fictional person, with no verifiable information in the article, qualify as speedy? Or does it, and I'm just missing which reason it falls under? 970:

Since every prod I've ever done has been removed, then I'd just automatically take it to AfD. In addition to removing it though, I would explain via template or a personal message on the original author's talk page that they need to substantiate that claim, and if they can do so, the article can remain (if they do it fast enough) or can be recreated.--

3016:

I've seen way too many articles tagged and bagged in under 5 minutes (and then sometimes redeleted as G4) to be comfortable with an expansion of A7 at this time. Maybe set a "no plausible claim of notability, and the article is more than X hours/days old". There's a fine line here between chasing off new contributions, and keeping the dreck out. --

419:

adding bandcruft gushes "This is the premier punk rock band of the 1990s and has had a unparalleled effect on the evolution of the genre.", statements which should be curbed unless there is additional evidence in the article. Anyone can make a vague awesomeness statement without any basis, or an utter hoax ("first man to walk on the moon certainly

4134:, particularaly in the case of a living person. Badly written articles take up way too much time and energy; I could easily have blanked the entire article under the "no sources" instructions. If that's possible—which in effect deletes the article—why shouldn't the article just be deleted? Either way, it has to be re-written in order to survive. 4301:? That seems significant to me. How much of the backlog at AfD could be reduced? There are obvious cases, as in this one, where I still feel speedy is justifiable; the sources are either dead-ends or don't mention the person, none of the standard sources for finding a porn filmography list him, there are no Google hits&nmdash;surely 2217:"No source", "no license", and "no rationale" (FUC #10) are bookkeeping mistakes. Since not everyone visits Knowledge (XXG) every day, it makes sense to leave them at one week before deletion. Violations of most of the other fair use criteria are fundamental to the image, so deleting the image right off the bat is a good idea. -- 980:

can't see that I'd be saved from hoaxes anyway(nonsense is of course covered by the perfectly sensible A1). There seems to be no reason for A7 to be speedy other than the fact that we don't want a lot of 'slam dunk' AFDs and prod is inadequate: it's not something that needs to be taken down quickly for legal reasons.

415:, which originally stated "is a 20th century composer". Only because stubs about non-notable composers are unusual did I check and flesh the article out rather than deleting it. This sort of article is already vulnerable under the current CSD, and would have no basis for not being deleted under the proposed change. 4153:

Then, by all means, stub it and send it to AfD. Hoaxes are bad, yes, but they shouldn't be speedyable. I understand what you're saying about the sources, but there has to be some level of effort to affirm it's a hoax, or some sort of consensus. We disagree, and that's fine, but hoaxes don't appear

3623:

I guess that is only a sample of the spam that is out there, in userified pages nobody knows about. I can't speak for the amount of spam that gets posted (even though I do RC Patrol - I'm online during the quietest part of the day), but on some days they can come thick and fast. I don't think Prod is

3097:

Prod can be removed by anyone. The idea is that the article has been around for a while, it is not "in progress" to making a claim of notability and it is not a popular sort of article that is on its way to indicating notability. The time limit could be anything to that end. At the extreme, deleting

3015:

I'm not convinced of A7's usability, but it does need SOME sort of refinement. Websites and startup businesses could fall under a generalized "no claim of notability" criterion, but we can't start biting the newbies just because their first edit doesn't include what the person's fame and fortune is.

2459:

IMO if a person asks to delete his contrib within 2-3 days of creation and no one contributed substantially, why not indulge? We will create less enemies in this way. What can we possibly gain by being snatchy grabbers to risk a reputation? Don't you know that people hate abusers of fine print? (Yes,

2069:

I don't understand what the problem is here. If something changes to suddenly make it a good idea to overturn the deletion of a redirect (which, given the nature of redirects, would include a sudden increased demand for that redirect), that would count as "new information", and the original deletion

1528:

Well, the language could use some work. Why not just use the same A7 language? "Unremarkable companies (advertisements). An article about a business that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead."

1161:

I wonder whether CSD R2 shouldn't be extended to cover redirects to the Knowledge (XXG) namespace as well. The reason for this is that redirects are frequently listed on RfD with the rationale "cross-namespace redirect" and deleted virtually automatically. It seems to me that this is wasted effort,

993:

question as to whether A7 should apply, it should go to AfD/prod. A7 isn't for anything we can't necessarily believe, but for things that show no obvious assertion of nobility. The source is irrelevant at this stage of the game, and we simply cannot expect all new editors to understand every policy

809:

I must be really unlucky because every article I've ever prodded has had an IP or new user removing the prod, and often the AfD templates. If we include prod, we now have 4 processes a new article can go through with enough muddling by a few individuals. Someone, or a few someones can game the system

613:

Which is nice that you do it, but my example about the band above illustrates the other side of the coin, where the band specifically said they had no commercial success but were "pretty popular in their little hometown" (paraphrased). There was obviously no way they were going to satisfy WP:BAND and

4432:

I agree :) But someone put all the talk pages I created, that didn't have attached articles, up for speedy deletion. I'm not sure what to do about that now, or how to prevent it in the future. I am not familiar with the sppedy deletion process, or how to respond to it. I was thinking of making a

4327:

You asked for more people to chime in. Deletable? Yes. Speedy-deletable? No. Alleged hoaxes (including situations like this where the first user can't find evidence of the person, event, etc.) are not appropriate for speedy-deletion. We've just had too many cases where an article was initially

3963:

constantly, and the images are used for almost decoration. The strong recommendation that images have a fair use rationale needs teeth. Several editors already do this, they take the time to provide fair use rationales when they don't neccessarily need to because the image would have to go through

3811:

made up of a real word and a familiar suffix. We are not documenting the word itself but using it for its meaning; if it suits the purpose there is nothing wrong with using a nonce word in policy. Having said that, if a suitable alternative can be agreed upon there is no harm in removing the word. I

3538:

Do you have any statistics on this question? CSDs are usually proposed when AFD (or it's equivalent process) is getting overwhelmed. How many of these a day are at MfD? Is the problem really beyond the ability of MfD to handle efficiently? I believe we should look for solid evidence that we need

3319:

and AFD, and that it doesn't need to be a rather flimsy A7. I'd like to tighten up the prod rules slightly, but my main problem is with A7 being speedy - there are lots of articles that don't conform to the policies which don't fall under speedy criteria, so why should this? It doesn't hurt anybody

3205:

Prod can be removed by anyone and then it has to go to AfD, so for many of these it means adding to the already many AfDs and the extra work that goes with nominating, having several people vote on it, and then closing it, when for the majority of these sorts they are going to be unanimously deleted

2383:

Sort of. The move function, unlike copy-paste moves, preserves the full history of the article (on the other hand, external links from mirrors of the article may become broken by a redirect deletion, so it should really have a grace period). Also, after page move vandalism, the leftover redirect can

2136:

Images which do not comply with this policy within 48 hours of the editor who uploaded the image being notified will be deleted. This is because fair use can be, and has been, applied incorrectly to images. The editor who uploaded the image should explain and provide evidence of how fair use applies

1707:

If A7 is a problem, we should discuss refining or excluding it from CSD. Changing the whole system will just confuse users, as by the time they likely read it, the page will be gone. It's different for AFD/IFD, where there's some question and debate to be had about the deletion. If a speediable page

1646:

to warn new users about an impending speedy deletion. I see a procedural problem with such a template since CSD-eligible articles can be (and frequently are) deleted on sight by any admin. I'm not sure, but I suspect the issue is deletion under A7, without any warning, of "good faith" creations by

1548:

Absolutely not. There's a good reason none of their articles have been deleted - they're informative articles about notable companies. Also, "information about a company" seems to be exactly what you would hope to find in an article about a company. Finally, CSD is not a means of overriding keeps in

637:

AfD regularly has backlog issues, so sending more articles there because of vague claims isn't really a good idea. And abuse of the system is exactly a reason there should be a little more oomph to this criterion. I regularly come across articles that people have tried to delete in the past when it

569:

A notable past band that has no web prescence. And yes albums aren't the only way, but looking at the list I can't think of any of those criteria that wouldn't result in someon, somewhere writing about them, unless its quite old. There is also a difference between starting an article about a current

476:

Actually they're not. Which is why I posted this. Maybe some admin do, but some other admin are erring well on the side of caution and removing tags from things that assert any remote notability even if it wouldn't satisfy the notability guidelines. I.e. we had an article where the only assertion of

418:

Still, unreasonable claims of notability ought to be included in the criteria somehow. This example points to the contradictions of the notability assertion criterion: someone adding encyclopedic information about someone notable may just state "This person is a 20th century artist", whereas someone

337:

Actually, the standard is more or less the same in both cases. Implausible, unlikely, or derogatory statements that do not have sources can be removed, either by speedy deletion in the case of a new article or by excision from any other article. Other unsourced statements are usually dealt with less

300:

We don't want to dump our problem on AfD by shipping it off there because we don't want to be bothered to check the assertion ourselves. For example, I could create an article about Linda Holmes who won Miss Universe in 1987. I could write a steaming pile about this individual when in reality it was

278:

Bite is how you handle it, not what you do. I have no problem politely discussing policy and how to write an article with a new person, I've done it more than once with someone I was only a few minutes before at odds with who was repeatedly removing speedy and Afd tags from the article. Is there not

227:

And why keep it and add to the AfD backlog if the person creating the article can't support the assertion in any reasonable way? Again: Why are we so inclusionist on new articles, yet the exact opposite in existing articles? Operating as such makes no sense and sends very mixed signals. On the other

150:

We have to remember that wikipedia requires that the person who wants the info included must provide the source. If someone creates an article about a person or group and their assertion of notability is vague, i.e. the band is really popular, or the band has a big following, or the person is a well

107:

I'm seeing a trend with A7 which I don't think works well. Some admin don't bother to check to see if a claim to notability is valid and simply remove the speedy tag based on the fact that there is a claim in the article, even if its completely made up. I think A7 should cover only sourcable claims

4244:

We're all in agreement that biographical hoaxes are unwelcome here and are prone to deletion, but there has been nothing in this discussion to establish why it needs to be a speedy. How many AfDs a week would this eliminate? How many of last month's AfDs qualify for speedy under this criterion, and

4038:

I disagree. It's a waste of many people's time and energy; it encourages this type of vandalism. If the sources given in the article are bogus and I've checked the major sources for porn star names and Google and not found anything, this person doesn't exist. If they do, then verifable sources need

3384:

process, perhaps a NPP watchlist page, where New page patrollers can add pages that look like they are likely to fall under A7 (or just need watching), would be the solution. If A7 is sticking around to prevent things going to AFD, it should definitely be reworded to list its exclusions rather than

3255:

I don't understand why that's a "failure" of prod (as opposed to maybe a "failing"). Prod is designed for lightweight, uncontroversial deletions that neverteheless don't rise to the level of speedy deletion. If it's controversial in any way (and that includes if any editor disagrees with the prod),

2971:

since it refers to A7 to speedy-delete unnotable web sites. Some might argue that websites are groups, but simply expanding A7 would be very useful. Allowing speedy deletions of unnotable websites is certainly in line with the spirit of the rule that grants speedy delettion of articles on unnotable

2806:

I intentionally left the wording terse as opposed to a complex-compound-triple-integral-fudge-ripple-run-on-sentence, which was my first idea. I see now with a couple examples that the wording needs revising, but could be a lot simpler than I had first thought. Single quotes, double quotes, tildes

1692:

I think that would be an excellent addition, as long as they're easy to type and remember, e.g: ((sdna#|PAGENAME)) = Speedy Deletion Notice Attack-page (which would also include the text from ((test#)), ((sdne|PAGENAME)) for Speedy Deletion Notice Empty page (perhaps adding text saying that if they

1344:

Several weeks ago, in my proposals for "patently worthless media", I proposed, "Image pages for images hosted on Commons where there is no actual media on en Knowledge (XXG)." This situation occurs one of two ways usually. Sometimes, a picture is nominated to be a featured picture. Then, the FPC

1136:

Thinking further about this, I think the problem with images used "with permission" is that people are using it as the thin end of a wedge, and if it was permitted to upload images that are just "with permission" to Knowledge (XXG), they will just slap permission tags on everything. (In fact, since

979:

Goat Carcasses for Jesus (or GC4J as their fans call them?) is a perfect illustration. Who would know whether A7 applies there? A prod (although likely to be contested by their no doubt huge fan base) would either send it straight to deletion or give them a chance to rectify it before it hit AFD. I

969:

Personaly I would say yes remove it. Its a vague claim, and unless there is a source (i.e. a well known reviewer or publication) backing that up, then its just another vague claim used to skirt the rules. However I know admin who would say its a claim and require I either prod it or take it to AfD.

954:

It might protect you from A7, but probably not from a hoax or nonsense. You're not talking about an A7 there. Here's a scenario: "The band Goat Carcasses for Jesus was formed in San Antonio, Texas, and is one of the most heralded ska-punk bands to come from the region." Should that be speedied?

856:

asserts notability..."? This isn't nearly as strong as what has been suggested in this proposal, the current CSD:A7 does technically include at its far edge a statement like "Billy is the President of the world", it is rather standard practice to ignore ridiculous assertions, and the objections and

839:

I'm just saying that I've seen articles go to AfD that really had no business being there. I've also seen AfDs that have been kept or declared no concensus by a closing admin who didn't appear to read the AfD. Combing those with a prod, and a deletion review, you've got a potential for something to

759:

Please re-read what that page actually said. The user gave anecdotal evidence that 90% of his prods were deleted, someone who actually looked at the numbers said 90% of the articles ended up deleted but that included prods that went to AfD. he didn't break it down further. In my experience prod has

743:

Not including the nominator, who replaced the tag and warned me that I had to be an admin to remove speedy tags, clearly showing they don't yet have the experience to be making these claims, I did not see a diversion from consensus, especially since the person who quoted the two essays did not come

647:

and remember, AfD is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, even though some treat it like that. I just don't see the point in passing off obviously non-notable articles to AfD for the potential of abuse via non-obvious sockpuppets, meat puppets or other "stacking", when they can be nipped in the

545:

Can you provide an example of a notable band that has no web prescence? Since record companies re-release their entire catalogue if a band met the criteria for being a pioneering style or having albums released under a major album, I'd challenge you to provide me with a band where you couldn't find

179:

Unfortunately its pointless and kneecaps speedy delete in this case. The criteria needs to have some teeth or anyone can simply get around it by making a vague assertion of notability. Since many vandals know the system they can game the system by creating these articles with these vague assertions

4399:

I do most of my wiki use at work. I'm typically researching some technical term or company. I use wikipedia a great deal in this search. It saddens me when it appears wikipedia does not have the article I'm looking for. At work I don't have the option of creating a proper article. So instead,

4249:

time on a daily basis and also that it does not allow for abuse by deletionist admins (at least no more so than the current CSD criteria) or the deletion of fledgling articles. These are my comments to Chidom for improving his position if this is to reach consensus rather than being a rebuttle per

4078:

It's too open to interpretation. It will give administrators the excuse to delete a large amount of the biography stubs we have without any warning, and it may actually unintentionally apply to some articles on people from long ago. Some editors (and admins) will interpret the word evidence. Do we

3438:

failed an earlier proposal with 58% support, which is probably relevant. A lot of the prior discussion seems to center around the idea that "notability is too hard for one person to determine", which has a lot of validity. Since admins can use speedy deletion criteria to delete articles themselves

3344:

template for New Pages Patrol that can be revisited, or maybe just better use of prod, but it has a lot of potential to trim AFD, if recent days' entries are any indication (yesterday (unscientifically): 34 RL persons, ~29 lists, 21 businesses, 19 websites, 15 musicians/groups/albums, 14 fictional

2000:

I'm not seeing the problem, unless everyone turns into the most wikilawyerest of wikilawyers. For starters, if G4 overruled a DRV consensus to undelete as you say, then DRV could only undelete articles if they were substantially changed. That's not the case - DRV can undelete articles without them

1907:

A7 already tells people to go to AfD if the classification is disputed. The only other criteria I can see as having any real chance of being applied to a kept article are G9 and A8, and either would overrule an AfD result anyway (we can't keep a copyvio just because some Wikipedians voted for it,

1348:

The general consensus was that this situation was already covered under the existing I2 criterion. I have been, when I have found them, tagging such images with I2 and leaving this explanation - "this image is at Commons. There is no media here - just this empty description page." Unfortunately,

1198:

This also raises the question of whether G4 should apply to redirects. Normally, if someone else wants an article on a deleted subject, it's not G4, because it's a different article; and this has been taken as an indication of notability. But there's only one way to make a redirect from A to B, so

1094:

I have a concern about CSD I3 and how it affects fair use. I asked Jimbo on his talk page (since I3 is a policy from him) but I think now it might be better to have a discussion with others. Okay; here's the issue. A lot of "fair use" images, as part of their rationale, say "in the absence of a

1008:

That's my point: A7 is nearly always questionable. Because it is so vague, it's next to useless because anybody who knows the policy would have a hard time applying it to even the most (un)deserving page, and some people who don't, are wont to slap it on willy-nilly (I've followed somebody's edit

679:

Many of the articles this idea would cover are vanity articles watched over and "improved" by some IP who remove PRODs, and if they get a chance, speedy and AfD notices too. Also, if AfD has several meat-fans or socks making wacky keep votes—in the sort of AfD that takes a lot of time/work for the

665:

policy is very important, it isn't within the scope of something that an admin can look at the page and choose delete for. Including any type of out of page verification by an admin means that the page has reasonable doubt for deletion, enough to put it through the passive PROD process, or failing

521:

In this day and age, if a person or band has no google prescence than the chances of them satisfying WP:BIO or WP:BAND is slim to none. Why send dozens of articles to AfD because of a false claim to notability because we want to avoid the remote chance that there is an article who has a legitimate

2477:

deletion. I'd first like to see some consensus form around the decision of making the author happy over retaining the content. In cases where the content is either high-quality, fills a notable niche, or is a voluminous collection of many articles, I don't think happiness is likely to be of equal

2074:

DRV. If nothing at all has changed since the redirect's deletion... why are you challenging it? You cannot challenge an ?fD of any sort just because you don't like its results; that's universal to the ?fD system. AfDs don't prevent the creation of substantially different versions, yes, but that's

1727:

I think the point is to let new contributors know that the article was deleted, and why... or at least that's why I think they're a good idea. I'm assuming this is a tag to be used by the person proposing the deletion as well as any admins on NPP? Of course they'll probably not be used every time

902:

Probably. If I created an article about myself saying I was the 39th president of the USA, that's certainly a claim of notability good enough to protect myself from the current A7. (Ignore other criteria for now.) On the other hand, if the claim of notability had to be plausible, then it would be

166:

The trend you are describing is exactly how A7 was designed to work -- if the claim of notability is disputed, AFD is the place to go. So the change you are recommending is a rather enormous one, and needs more discussion. A change like the one you propose would hopefully be part of a new general

3333:

Gotcha. Prod works most of the time, and A7 works some of the time, is overapplied some of the time (and passes, and sometimes looks like it should be applied (imaginary friends, pets, etc) but can't be so it takes up time and space at AFD. I'd support, personally, an A7 that included real-world

2364:

The MediaWiki software automatically creates the redirect at the old location for a reason. It assists in the preservation of the article's contribution history (a requirement of GFDL) and it serves to point the original author(s) to the new location of the article so they may contribute at the

1878:

at top of page). Of course, there are exceptions, particularly for some of the more debatable criteria such as A7. If you're thinking of adding a caveat that articles that have passed AfD cannot be speedied, I would support this - the point of CSD is to decrease load on AfD, and in this case the

733:

Actually you got three saying it should have gone to AfD and 2 saying it should have been speedied, not a terribly overwhelming concensus there. I honestly would have said it should have been speedied to. You've got a vague and unsourced claim that sounds like a joke. This is the exact thing I'm

719:

is one example of where I removed speedy tags and instead of a reasonably uninterrupted prod process, resulted instead on an AfD in which editors agreed that on discussion this article was to be deleted, however it was not something they could do on sight, or were not comfortable doing on sight.

623:

But you overlook the criterion of frequency. "More than one" is not a preponderance of AfDs. Unless you really think there are so many articles of this type being AfD'ed that AfD can't handle them all, there's no reason to propose an expansion of this rule. And speedy deletion is not a method of

3902:

You know, looking back. I realised I was quite silly and didn't cleanly read the criteria. We ask that uploaders in all sorts of places put fair use rationales. But there's no teeth to it with dozens of fair use templates that circumvent the point, I belive, of I6. I've tagged (and probably

1053:

I never said anything about a hoax. The person can be real and the assertion can be real, but vague and not notable. In the case of the band who's assertionwas "They've had no commercial success but are really popular in their home town". I was told to take that to AfD even though regardless of

310:

Again, all this was considered when the criteria was set up -- the point is that no article which makes a plausible claim of notability should be deleted without going through AFD or PROD, which gives ample time for the matter to be thoroughly researched. A single admin handling speedy deletion

4305:

of those would support an AfD, but the lack of all of them? The only reason this can't be listed as speediable under current guidelines is that A7 doesn't apply here because of the assertion of importance, which has not been sourced and is not verifiable by any usual means. What is the harm of

921:

of notability?) Application of A7 is a problem more for the nominee, who is less likely to know the policies off by heart, than the admin. The closing admin will normally have enough knowledge to know that Billy isn't President of the World (and hence delete), but even for them, something more

327:

plausible is an awfully subjective word. Its also easy to make a plausible claim without it being true. I'm still at a loss as to why the burden has been shifted in the case of article creation to the person who wants it removed and not the person who wants it included. Yet once the article is

2079:

to have substantially different versions, which would mean the old AfD reasoning might not apply... the fact that that doesn't apply to redirects is by design, not an accident. The reasons why RfDs remain valid until new information arises are entirely inherent in the nature of redirects, so

714:

I understand there are some issues with letting the processes run their course. However, these criteria were never made up with the idea of being anything but directly objective to any reasonable editor "on sight". I have removed tags before and will continue in the future if I see a claim to

2873:

Unlikely typos are open to much more interpretation, and as such have a short limit on how new a redirect can be to qualify under that criterion. Most of the redirects I've seen that this proposed criterion addresses are not attack pages. Admins continue to delete redirects out of process by

1935:

The only thing that might be worth having is a slight rewording on A7 to clarify the fact that AfD results should be used instead of A7 when an article's classification is disputed (which would plainly be the case if it had been contested when it came up on AfD!) I do not think that this is

599:

speedy delete the resultant article that has no assertion of significance. However we should not expect admins to jump thru silly hoops like this when the result is the same. I do speedy deletes quite frequently of things that probably don't exactly match a CSD, and so far there's been no

4442:

It depends on how recent the edits to the talk page are, I would think. If someone created a new talk page as you did, it probably shouldn't be speedied immediately. OTOH, a talk page which corresponds to a deleted page (admins occasionally forget), contains nothing but garbage or has an

1372:

The description page, in many cases, should be blanked, not deleted, so as to preserve the edit history of the image description which has been copied to commons. The talk page is also used to place the images into en cateogires and tag images an en-Featured Pictures. 13:47, 7 August 2006

3001:

I am opposed to any expansion whatsoever. I disagree with it because what constitutes a "assertion of notability" is subject to interpretation, and because often legitimate articles are written (such as on historical figures) that contain, at best, an implicit assertion of notability.

3455:. It's still all about people, not websites/corporations, though, which would be a stumbling block to expanding A7. On the other hand, can someone provide statistics on uncontested deletions of nn websites/companies on AFD? Maybe that would provide the data needed to gain support. -- 1558:

We're not talking about overriding AFD or articles that contain meaningful information about a company. We're talking about blatant coroporate spam when someone just posts their resume, a press release, or some linear combination of the two. These are not controversial deletions.

1018:

I think my point is that there are some questions the admin can answer at the time of deciding on the speedy. Rather than just going "Oh..I dunno, take it to AfD". A simple "Do you have any substantiation for this statement?" would probably get rid of most of them right then and

2333:

companies are excluded from A7 (I've seen companies get speedied, and I'll admit I've done this on several occasions too). Either the criteria ought to be changed to reflect this, or "companies do not fall under A7" ought to be enforced. I prefer the former option, obviously.

1293:

I think there's a pretty big difference between "take it to MFD for a few opinions and then speedy delete" and just plain speedy deletion, even if that difference can't be encapsulated in policy. It can be useful to get a few more pairs of eyeballs on these if there is doubt.

4004:

Just because you can't find evidence doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. This is absolutely a situation where an AfD is warranted - if it's a hoax, 5 more days with multiple sets of eyes won't hurt to make it clear, and if it isn't, it'll easily be proven otherwise.

262:

from the British Crown, and is in fact notable in her field. But your method might not have given her article that chance, and we'd be one short. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, as we've clearly got different wiki-philosophies backing us up here. --

3846:

implies parts of what has been written lack connection or unity. It is doubtful the articles flagged with this message actually contain mutually exclusive or contradictory statements. Thus, while the articles may often be unintelligible and not encyclopedic in nature, the

1412:

spam CSD onto the list, but this one is so vague it seems to encompass every single article on companies. What else should an article on a company contain apart from "information about a company and links to the company website, its holding companies and products"?

2306:

delete such redirects. An article that has existed under one valid name for any significent length of time may have external, non-Knowledge (XXG) links coming to it under that name. Keeping the redirect created by the move allows such links to remain valid.

1481:

I 100% support adding this as a CSD and associated template. A7 lets vanity pages for people, groups, and bands be deleted. I don't see why blatant corporate spam shouldn't be deleted as well. I would suggest, though, simply redirecting your template to

1911:

A valid A1, A2, or A3 will never pass AfD, while someone making an invalid speedy deletion using those clear-cut criteria isn't going to stop just because you threw some more red tape at them. If by some freak accident a valid A1-A3 speedy candidate ever

4331:

I was keeping a file on mistaken-hoax discussions for a while. I think I still have links to a couple of the more interesting discussions on my userpage. By the way, remember that the initial version of the article is poorly sourced or poorly written.

3345:

characters/references, 9 neologisms/dictionary definitions, 6 original research/essays/POV pages, 4 webcomics, 3 RL groups, 3 RL places, 3 pieces of software - with some noticable overlap between websites & businesses, and musicians & people). --

994:

and guideline that's around when they start making articles. I've been here a year and a half and I'm still learning about policies and guidelines I never knew existed. Save A7 for the obvious, let's not make an excuse to delete articles willy-nilly. --

2771:

Just because they don't tend to be kept doesn't necessarily mean that a) they're all being nominated for deletion, or b) that there isn't a legitimate search target with quotes in some instances. I'm a little wary of the necessity of this at the moment.

1186:, there will be at least time to orphan them by bot before deleting. Also, the criterion would have to be formulated in a way that the WP: and MoS: shortcuts (which are just as cross-namespace as those that recently have been deleted) won't be affected. 922:

obscure may make it difficult to know what is 'plausible'. A fair percentage of cases that go to AFD could probably be handled under A7, but they end up there because people don't know how to apply A7. Personally I'd like to see A7 go and be replaced by

781:

are getting deleted after five days, which tells me the system is more-or-less working. Sure, there's some vultures who watch over their pet articles and remove any threat to their existence, but those can be dealt with as disruption when they occur. I

1429:, and uses it as their criteria, for accepting clients. Hence, any article they make, would be qualified for inclusion. You can't extend CSD to cover articles which would survive AFD. This seems to be a problem without a solution I can think of. -- 4433:

template or something I could just drop on a new talk page I create, saying something like, This talk page was created to encourage the creation of an article on this subject. It is notable because of X, these Y links should assist future editors.

3479:

but it was changed to a Prod on the basis that camps are excluded. I assumed that they could be a 'group of people' or a 'club'. If they are not covered I should like to suggest that they are. (I am not arguing this specific case but the principle.)

2348:

Recently, a number of redirects have been inappropriately deleted under criterion G6:Housekeeping after simple page-moves. The intention of this criterion is to allow the non-controversial deletion of a redirect in order to make way for a pagemove

1926:

A6 could theoretically be disputed, but in practice the definition of 'attack pages' is narrow and clear enough to lump it in with A1-A3, above. The fact that the only major discussion of A6 in recent memory has been its duplication into I8 shows

4384:

is, a lack of sources is not sufficient reason to speedily-delete an article. This is done, as I understand, mostly because new articles written by inexperienced editors tend not to have sources, though the articles themselves may be very useful.

926:

prod guidelines: allowing you to prod it if you think it fails policies or guidelines regardless of whether it is likely to be contested, and making removal without comment a breach of policy. That would save time in both speedy deletes and AFD.

594:

This is a good illustration of why it's a mistake to interpret CSDs too literally. A disputed, unsourced statement can be removed from an article and this is allowed. So, it is within the letter of the law to first remove the dubious clame and

1916:

pass an AfD, we'll be in a situation so bizarre that extra verbage on this page is unlikely to matter much one way or the other; whatever strange, unforeseeable circumstances could bring that situation about would have to be dealt with as they

2407:

assert the importance or significance of its subject." This is rather a change in the letter of the rule, where currently any insane assertion of "greatest in the universe" technically does not qualify, but are in practice rightly deleted.

2384:

be deleted as simple vandalism (not G6). Other than that, I agree that G6 should not ever be used to delete a former title, even if it was simple miscapitalization - it should go through RfD to determine if that redirect is useful or not.

3435: 348:

tag in other articles. These methods are intended to bring problems to wider attention so they can be fixed. Though obviously there is a lot more leeway in dealing with statements in existing articles, the processes are somewhat similar.

3797:

To the contrary, it is the coherence to which the adverb is intended to apply. The point is that if the page can be edited to be coherent, it should be. This often applies to articles written by authors with a poor knowledge of English.

2836: 2036:

The problem now is that if a redirect is ever deleted, even by three or four discussants, it can be (legitimately) speedied every time anybody ever recreates it. (And under the proposal, we only have to discuss them if A recreates one

1141:, they do, and it gets speedied.) "GFDL" and "Creative Commons" still have a somewhat "mystical" feel for users and they don't tend to use them, or maybe it's just because the permission slot is earlier in the drop-down, I don't know. 189:

Speedy delete needs to be kneecapped. That's the only protection articles have against A7 - assertion of notability. There is nothing wrong with sending it to AfD, allowing more editors to see the article, and possibly improving it.

2322:... the set of non-notable companies does not fit into the set of non-notable clubs. A company is a club of select people (those who have been hired) who have the intention of generating income and -- just maybe -- serving customers. 1614:

We should have very low tolerance for companies that do not give reasons for their notability - a speedy tag is putting the burden of proof on them, where it belongs. They are sucking bandwidth, editor time and wikipedias good name.

410:

Removing all uncited living person information only applies to derogatory or possibly libelous statements, not to straightforward or laudatory statements. For an example that would be a problem under the proposed CSD alteration, see

371:

As Christopher says, it is doing what it is suppose to do. Sending unsourced notability claims to AFD or PROD only slightly delay deletion while giving the uploader a chance to establish the aunthenticity of the claims being made.

2287:

If this is a result of the move discussion, then it's G6 (and should be noted in the discussion close); if not, it should go to RfD. But I don't think we need to add language; G6 says "like" because it's never going to be complete.

1467:. If it's considered potentially harmful, I wouldn't object to it's deletion... and it might be good to delete it actually, because it was used at least once by another user (I deleted it and replaced with a ((delete|reason)) tag). 2001:

being substantially changed if the deletion was improper. Has there ever been a case of a redirect staying deleted per G4 when it clearly shouldn't have been, or is this an instruction-creeping solution in search of a problem? --

1776:

Because its personal opinion and subjectivity that can determine if something is worthy of being speedy deleted. Sadly a lot of admins take it upon themselves to remove things stating T1 and T2 in cases where that isn't clear.

2198:. However, as I've said above, speedy deletion is the method of handling things, not the policy itself. The amendment in question was discussed and adopted after a discussion, so it's consensus has already been established .. 2025:

I don't know that I like that idea. I fully believe that, for example, cross-namespace redirects of essential Knowledge (XXG) pages are a good idea, but I don't want us to have to argue about the issue every three months.

2010:

No, the problem is that, under present phrasing, all such speedies are proper. DRV would be discouraged from discussing "was this redirect useful?", in favor of "was it identical?", which the new redirect will have to be.

2434:

In any case, an article that hinges on a completely and plainly implausable assertion (e.g. "John Smith is a high school student and President of the United States.") can probably just be deleted under G3 as vandalism.

2137:

to the image (though anyone can provide an explanation) and make every attempt to comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s fair use policies. In addition, the Special:Upload page is very specific about our image upload conditions.

3859:

given the authors further explain themselves. So take this into consideration along with the nonexistence of the word and the novice linguistics skills of the average offender of the policy. The suggestion (below) for

2991:

Could you explain this a bit further? Do you mean that the term notable is too loose? Are you both opposed to widening the rule (adding more items in similar vain) as well as deepening it (making it further reaching)?

1345:

tag is deleted, leaving an empty description page. The other way is that someone leaves a comment about the image or provides some other useful information that would be more useful on the commons description page.

311:

likely does not have the time to fully research each and every speedy deletion candidate. Speedy deleting without conducting such research would result in too many false positives of the type Centrx described above.

3114:

Oh, you'll get no argument from me on giving progressive saves some slack, but the trick is how to word it without hamstringing NPP for things like kids in school, garage bands, somebody's aged grandmother, etc. --

1252:

I don't forsee a problem. The wording is basically the same as A6, and theoretically the A6 criterion could be used to delete articles about subjects where a neutral biography inevitably paints them in a bad light

2256:

I have a proposed addition for the G6 criterion: pages with a disambiguation term in their titles that are redirects. A lot of bad moves for disambiguation are made. For example, someone might come along and move

2834:

I also toyed with the idea of making another condition that the same redirect exists without scare quotes, but that seems too restrictive and too easy to avoid by simply creating the redirect. See my comments at

254:. We don't delete problem articles (generally) if the problems are fixable, right? When you speedy someone's article, it would seem to me that they would be less likely to try again later, not more. Recently 1610:

a speedy tag for adverts. A lot of really small, obvisouly non-notable companies advertise here and there is no reason we should have to write out a neat little message to them all nor spend time AfD'ing

2792:? The apostrophe does not show up in the title of the album in reality, thus meeting your criteria, although this is a perfectly logical redirect as well as a perfectly logical way to type the title. -- 2156:

line should just be removed (after discussion there). Anything in that list of policies that could cause a FU image to be removed is covered elsewhere. So it really just amounts to instruction creep.

1172:

To the contrary, I've seen contentious debates over certain cross-namespace redirects, often with multiple deletions and undeletions. No one's going to convince me this criterion would be uncontestable.

2864:

Why can't these just be speedied as unlikely typos (or attack pages)? "Hate me" was speedy deleted. I've tagged quoted redirects for speedies before as unlikely typos and nobody has ever complained.

4058:

So you've looked in every possible place that this could be? You don't think other people may be better equipped to find information in places you're not thinking of? I just had this exact issue with

2733: 2055:

someone into recreating their favorite pet redirects every three months. How about solving the problem by spelling out in the criterion, "this clause also does not apply to deletions overturned at

3697: 3612: 3617: 4250:

se. As an aside, the reason we put all that work into deleting bad articles is because some of them are good faith contributions that turn into good articles despite their initial violation of

1568:

I'm not objecting to the idea, but to the specific wording of the proposal. "Does not assert the importance" won't work either, because they will. I haven't seen a good wording for this yet.

1446:. Really just a shorcut template for prodding this sort of article, so presumably not violating any rules. You're right, the articles I've seen so far by that company (one user is apparently 390:

What's the rush? I seriously want to know, this is not a facetious question. Why is a claim of notability not worth (at most, in a perfect storm of manipulation) two weeks of reflection? --

108:

to notability and any vague claims should be ignored when the admin consider it. Otherwise any half-baked article could be kept simply by making an equally half-baked claim to notability. --

4443:

inappropriate title, or a page which was moved without moving the talk page (it happens), or which has sat untouched for weeks...those are good speedy candidates. In questionable cases, {{

3607: 94: 89: 84: 72: 67: 1519:

be included under this proposed CSD? What else do such articles contain apart from "information about a company and links to the company website, its holding companies and products"? --

1080:

The word "remotely" suggests any tiny (but actually implausible) tug at notability bars a speedy deletion. I have deleted the word and commented on the policy talk page to this effect.

3562: 2724: 2368:

The only exception to this that comes to mind is when a page is moved from the article-space into the user-space. In that situation, the left-over redirect should always be deleted.

1722: 59: 3355: 3278: 3448: 2728: 936:

Most of them aren't administrators, but there are some people who will insist on adhering with the precise letter of the policy, no matter how ridiculous, and will remove the tag. —

516: 400: 273: 4368:. The proper thing to do in such cases is to make sure the article presents it as one, rather than delete (often difficult, as with the example). AfD is more likely to catch this. 4210: 3423: 3125: 3092: 2968: 2902:

It seems too narrow. Other criteria apply to broad classes and have hundreds of candidates per day. For this, there was just this one crop, and some of them are reasonable typos. —

2742: 804: 497:

If the notability is proven in the article it should take them all of 5 seconds to google it. If they can't verify it in that time frame, it probably hasn't be asserted properly.--

3465: 3136:

Why expand it at all before discussion here? It's controversial enough without trying to add corporations and websites, and there's no indication that it needs to be expanded. --

3049: 3026: 1902: 1771: 464:

Articles that make ridiculous and unrealistic claims of notability like the ones you describe above are already deleted regularly, so I don't think any change is really needed.

1892:, and it would clarify one more case when Speedy Deletions aren't appropriate. You've got a point about speedy keeps being a possible point of wikilawyering, though... hmm. -- 3572: 3567: 3444: 3431: 3427: 312: 3182:

I'd still like somebody to explain why the current A7 needs to be speedy? "Oh no, they aren't notable! Quick, get it off the servers, before the notability police see it!"?

1199:

deleted redirects will never be reconsidered. (A limited form of G4, on the order of "no identical redirect can be recreated within 30 days" would be perfectly reasonable.)

1009:

history just removing their speedy tags because they clearly didn't apply). I don't want to strengthen it, I want to get rid of it and give prod (or a relation) more teeth

3264:- we can't change the rules now because we don't like them. Several processes failed to gather approval before prod was formed. Where do you see the problem is with prod? 3602: 3592: 3419: 1668: 153:

The author does not assert credible notability per guidelines. In the case of borderline individuals or groups this should be presented in the form of external references

4173:

a hoax; not the other way around. Properly sourcing the article does this. If we're going to have the policy that articles have to be sourced, then we should enforce it.

3597: 790:

think this is an expansion of the original A7 criteria. The system works in the vast majority of the cases just fine, and letting a few questionable cases go to AfD is

2677:

What does everyone think of this? At times, 25% of the listings on RfD would qualify for this, and I've not yet seen one kept or even had significant showing from the

2277:

remains as a completely unnecessary redirect after the move. After making sure that any links to it have been changed, I think that the redirect should be deleted. --

1868: 1798:

It should definitely be optional... and it certainly shouldn't be as arduous as starting an AfD. However, they would allow for easy ways of dealing with both vandals (

3587: 3582: 3577: 1879:

price is already paid. If the keep was based on premature nomination and conditional on improvement, it might be speediable, but they should probably renominate it.

1349:

the response is often a blank stare and several messages have been left on my talk page informing me of the correct way to request that a Commons image be deleted.

3539:

yet another CSD criterion before we add yet more complexity to this page. Especially since, as you say, this one may be particularly difficult to word properly.

2515:

that may be of interest. I'd like any comments - I can always learn! Anything from "none of your business" to "how interesting" will do. Regards & thanks --

1839:

Many speedy deletions occur because a new editor expects to be able to work on an article in stages instead of having to finish it within 1-2 minutes of creation.

1693:

were going to add material to the article after creating it, they should include at least some content in the original version, and mark it with ((stub))), etc. --

3232:

for non-owners or a clear-up for abandoned articles. Sticking random notability criteria in Speedy delete isn't a solution because the problem doesn't lie there.

2452:"Author deletion requests made in bad faith". IMO the addition is way too harsh. In a civilized society people must give each other some slack. Ever heard about 4169:

I agree with you that it's okay that we disagree. Hopefully more folks will chime in here. The "level of effort" should be made by the editor to prove that it's

3054:

Perhaps it should have a delayed element. Broaden the class of things that fall under it, but only allow deletion after they have been around for a week or so. —

2956: 2400: 1653:

Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author — remember,

47: 17: 2199: 1675:, particularly "new" users, what might have happened to their article in cases that could even charitably be considered "good faith". Comments about this? -- 1654: 4447:}} may be more appropriate, to see if anyone wants to keep it for a good reason. There isn't an (usually) urgency to delete stray talk pages, after all... -- 440:

The key is that the CSDs are supposed to be unequivocally checkable by the deleting administrator. Perhaps this could be resolved just by adding "...does not

3680:

would be less offensive and more intelligible, especially considering this is often used as a notice to new users who have just made an inappropriate entry.

3447:. Note the original "An article about a real person that does not assert..." wording. bands/groups were added in December 2005; the discussion is referenced 2645:

R4. Redirects with scare quotes that do not appear in the target's title or in the target article's alternate name which appears in bold on the target page.

1728:(vandalism and spam is often reverted without followups on userpages), but I'd guess they'll get their share of use once patrollers become aware of them. -- 258:

went through being speedy-tagged, removed, speedy-tagged, removed, prodded, removed, and AFDed in a matter of hours. Come to find out that the woman has an

2982:

I strongly oppose any expansion of the already too-subjective, too-general rule A7, which is often interpreted loosely by the single admins that apply it.

2185:

It shouldn't be removed because one page is about the policy and then this page is about the process of deleting that which does not follow the policy. --

488:

I don't think it's reasonable for a single admin to check verifiability - this criterion is already subjective enough. Leave it to other deletion methods.

3714:

is a word, sorry for the mistake. The meaning may seem obvious, but I believe it is highly ambiguous, bad English, and looks poorly upon Knowledge (XXG).

2354: 2109: 4060: 3283:

I think what is meant is that prod breaks by allowing the 2-day old user who wrote a fan page about their favorite website to just remove the prod tag. —

3036: 4410:

Sure. The criterea already cover this IMHO. "Talk pages of pages that do not exist, unless they contain deletion discussion that isn't logged elsewhere

3443:

ambiguous cases. It's also important to note that the original proposal emphasized that it was about "real people", and even then only squeaked by with

423:

an assertion of notability and cannot technically be deleted under this CSD, though it ought to be and is deleted anyway sometimes under "nonsense"). —

130:"crowned King of France in 2005"), but yet do not cite a link. I have verified and expanded several articles like this. Of course, verifiability means 4470:}}. Feel free to use it as-is, change it, move it to your userspace, or whatever. Just let me know if you definately will not use it, and I'll slap a 3370:

template to slow things down may help address some of the points, but I'd be worried that it would get removed by the editor without comment, just as

1327: 1182:

The anti-cross-space redirect faction has already deleted most of them. As they often have many incoming links, speedying them is not a good idea. At

1138: 4236: 4122:

It's not up to me to look in every possible place this could be to start with; the author of the article is supposed to provide verifiable sources.

3393: 3294: 3109: 3065: 1940: 1883: 1790: 1781: 1737: 814: 526: 283: 1067: 716: 4130:. In this case, the sources that were given either didn't exist or made no mention of the subject matter; they're worthless—not reputable, as is 3690:

The meaning is obvious. It's the adverb form of "unsalvageable", which is quite common and found in the Merriam Webster dictionary, among others.

2170:

are already listed here (#1? #2?), and that line was just added after a policy amendment. I suggest that we amend I7 to reflect the situation.

3334:

people/groups/bands/companies/pets that make no claim of notability/importance and are more than 24 hours old. Maybe this requires some sort of

1708:

gets deleted, it can be recreated (if appropriate) in non-speediable form. If admins are speedying pages that are outside the criteria, smack

3650:

is not a word (Ref: Oxford English Online, Merriam-Webster Online, and American Heritage). I took the liberty of doing a full text search of

1967:

will not reconsider, since applying G4 to a recreated redirect, even if it is recreated as a result of popular demand a year later, is still

1385:

Yes, I see this conversation has gone on before. However, these articles seem to be becoming quite common, possibly because of services like

3933:, for example, was created after the cutoff. No longer do you need to provide a rationale, you have the fair use copyright tag that isn't 3627:

It should be a general criteria, because spam can crop up anywhere. As for wording, it should go something like this - "article is about a

1314:

I changed "Check Special:Listusers to verify" to "Check both Special:Listusers and Special:Contributions to verify," because some very old

1075:

Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Knowledge (XXG):Speedy deletion.

167:

policy requiring all new articles to cite a source, perhaps with a technical change to the article creation process to facilitate this.

3265: 2922:

I think the biggest problem here is that it potentially leaves too much guesswork. Anything that is really an attack scare quote like

778: 2041:

B RfD's it; i.e. if there is still disagreement on the matter.) Would adding "recreated by a different user" answer your objections?

1382:"Articles containing nothing but information about a company and links to the company website, its holding companies and products." 1243:

I would oppose this wording, since it will be abused to get rid of pages collecting evidence of 3RR violations or for ArbCom cases.

4196:

while smoking crack and banging four year olds", on the other hand, is demonstrably false, and vandalism. I would think verifiably

3964:

a lengthy deletion process to be deleted, when they can just be lazy. I7 has some usefulness to remedy this, but its not enough.

3192:

would seem to be able to do the same job just fine if we dropped the "uncontroversial" constraint (which is often ignored anyway).

2338: 1393:

is going to be soon overtaxed if these companies follow through on their service if the members have to go through AfD every time.

531:

So what about bands that don't exist anymore? Groups or people who's notability existed before the age of instant information? --

3923:. If you want to actually upload some images, you can avoid having to put a fair use rationale if you create your own template. 2564:

No matter who removed it. I'd advise Jaranda to cite a specific criterion for speedy deletion that clearly applies in the future.

4023: 3385:

its inclusions (I think allowing pets and buildings to pass was probably an accidental omission rather than a conscious choice).

2497:. The first edit (after it was created) placed a speedy deletion because of vanity tag on it. The next edit was by the creator 1803: 1799: 1099: 4467: 1631: 786:

want to make admins responsible for verifying claims during speedy deletion patrol (there's enough of a backlog already), and I

3624:

appropriate for blatant spam - when someone spams up your email inbox, do you wait five days before you hit the delete button?

1748:

a good idea, but only as an optional thing for more confusing/surprising speedies. CSD has to remain lightweight to be useful.

1457: 624:

overriding a keep vote - if such articles are kept, that is not evidence of the need for a CSD, but evidence that there should

555:

A notable active band, or a notable past band? As you know, with WP:MUSIC, albums aren't the only way to check notability. --

3035:

of commentary on this page about the problems/limitations with A7. This should probably be moved down the page/split off into

4220: 2508: 3222:

Yes, but the removed prod having to go to AFD is a failure of the prod process, which at the moment acts more or less like

2745:... come to think of it, all but one of these are in the form of single- or double-quotes used as scare quotes except one. 3937: 3917: 213:

And if an article can't be cleaned up after 5 days with verifiabile sources, who'll complain? Why the rush to delete? --

4200:

claims of notability (i.e. unique awards) wouldn't count for A7, as the claim can simply be removed from the article. --

2935: 1858:

result, and later be speedied under any of the A# criteria. Would that be a fair descriptor of what already happens? --

1298: 468: 353: 319: 171: 3885: 2056: 917:"plausibly" doesn't really help much more than "asserts" does currently (is "is well-known in Fooville" or the like an 4520: 4499: 4451: 4437: 4423: 4404: 4389: 4372: 4355: 4345: 4319: 4273: 4186: 4163: 4147: 4116: 4073: 4052: 4030: 4014: 3998: 3971: 3892: 3874: 3831: 3802: 3792: 3703: 3684: 3635: 3548: 3532: 3484: 3328: 3250: 3217: 3200: 3175: 3161: 3145: 3006: 2996: 2986: 2976: 2942: 2913: 2897: 2868: 2858: 2826: 2801: 2781: 2764: 2718: 2708: 2666: 2611: 2602: 2579: 2568: 2559: 2548: 2539: 2521: 2482: 2467: 2439: 2429: 2419: 2388: 2377: 2311: 2292: 2281: 2246: 2234: 2221: 2206: 2189: 2174: 2161: 2146: 2121: 2093: 2084: 2063: 2045: 2030: 2015: 2005: 1992: 1843: 1830: 1815: 1752: 1702: 1686: 1619: 1599: 1572: 1563: 1553: 1533: 1523: 1510: 1496: 1476: 1433: 1423: 1417: 1402: 1366: 1334: 1301: 1286: 1269: 1247: 1237: 1203: 1193: 1177: 1166: 1150: 1131: 1106: 1084: 1058: 1048: 1023: 1013: 1003: 984: 974: 964: 947: 931: 912: 897: 883: 868: 834: 764: 738: 709: 691: 652: 642: 632: 618: 607: 574: 564: 550: 540: 501: 492: 481: 471: 459: 434: 385: 376: 356: 332: 322: 305: 232: 222: 208: 199: 184: 174: 159: 145: 112: 506:

And if the assertion is sourced offline? Let's not increase our symbiotic relationship with Google any further... --

3982: 3726:

are not words in any English dictionary. Dictionaries list adverbs formed by adding a derivational morpheme, namely

3166:

Well, that's part of the template thing, no? Either way, is there anything demonstrating the need to expand it? --

2923: 477:

notability was local within a town in new zealand and I was told to take it to AfD because there was an assertion.--

38: 4381: 4123: 4039:

to be listed so that the assertion that they are a porn star can be verified, or we leave ourselves open to libel.

3495:

How about adding a U3 "Blatant advertising". Self promotion/sandboxing etc on userpages is expressly forbidden by

2532: 2361:). The intention of this criterion was never to delete a redirect after a pagemove simply to leave it blank. 3947: 2460:

I know it is bad analogy, but the same style: "Sorry dear Sir or Madam, you ve seen the contract, gotcha!") `'

2080:

suggesting that we 'solve' this by having RfDs periodically expire on an arbitrary timescale makes no sense. --

1323: 204:

There is a difference between an article needing clean-up and a non-notable subject. You can't clean that up.--

4159: 4069: 4010: 3927: 3171: 3141: 2931: 2927: 2797: 2777: 1888:

That's exactly what I'm thinking of doing. I doubt it happens very often now, except when people are making a

1463:(BTW, yesterday I created an illegal template (now "defanged", and will not add articles to the SD category): 1221: 999: 960: 893: 830: 560: 536: 251: 250:? New articles are unlikely to have evolved/had enough eyes on them to have absorbed policy and guideline and 218: 195: 4192:

I agree, generally hoaxes shouldn't be speediable. An article whose only claim of notability is "was elected

2714:

Could you give an example of a redirect that is set up like this? I can't say as I've ever encountered one.--

4361: 3968: 1854:

I'm having a hard time coming up with any hypothetical articles which could pass an AFD with an unambiguous

1295: 1045: 465: 350: 316: 168: 3660:

does not show up anywhere – that is any definition, quotation, variant spelling, etc. Furthermore, neither

3504: 1980:, G4 shall not apply to redirect recreated more than 90 days after deletion. Such cases should be taken to 4336:

is the standard to which we bring our articles. Very few of them met that standard on their first edit.

3957: 3520: 1356: 1112:

Well, if that other image is also justified under fair use, then you can replace the first one and tag it

4155: 4065: 4006: 3903:

gotten several images deleted as a result) by tagging images which were marked as fair use, but not with

3167: 3137: 2793: 2773: 2403:, any objections to having "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not 1660: 995: 956: 889: 826: 825:

So you're afraid of meatpuppetry, so you want to avoid AfD? I don't like that line of thought at all. --

556: 532: 214: 191: 2502: 745: 721: 667: 2875: 2511:) & removed that tag. I can see no evidence of discussion of deletion. There is a related page - 1643: 1225:. User pages or sub-pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject(s) or some other entity. 1044:

In short, no, because hoaxes go to AfD. It starts getting into "Well are the sources 'good' or not".

4317: 4234: 4184: 4145: 4050: 3996: 3512: 2788: 2512: 1664: 3481: 2599: 2478:

value. Since it's not clear cut and involves subjective judgement, speedy deletion is inappropriate.

2002: 1681: 1639: 1520: 1443: 1414: 1266: 1234: 3838:

I find it even more disturbing, and inaccurate, if we actually intend to be modifying the adjective

3812:

really don't see it being a big deal either way, there are more pressing issues on Knowledge (XXG).

3476: 3364: 3338: 874:"plausibly" seems sensible, it would bring things into line with what's being done if nothing else. 4495: 4448: 4269: 4206: 4112: 3827: 3516: 3461: 3391: 3351: 3326: 3274: 3248: 3198: 3121: 3088: 3045: 3022: 2893: 2854: 2822: 2760: 2704: 2662: 2528: 2498: 2494: 1898: 1864: 1767: 1718: 1451: 800: 512: 396: 373: 269: 3508: 3242:

needs some teeth - removal without a reason shouldn't mean that it can't be replaced for example.

2934:

can be speedied as an unlikely typo. Anything that is potentially controversial or questionable (

1390: 1318:

have been removed from the system (perhaps all of them at some point in 2002?), even though their

3870:, is strikingly better in this situation, as it more accurately describes the situation at hand. 3299:

Yes, perhaps I should have said failing rather than failure. Essentially what I'm saying is that

2584:

Actually, speedy deletion tags may not be removed by the creator of the article. See the text of

2464: 2358: 1464: 412: 2052: 1889: 715:

notability which I cannot verify on sight as to whether it is either patent nonsense or vanity.

4352: 4019:

Exactly as Jeff said. It's no great tragedy when we can't use speedy deletion for everything.

3889: 3867: 3799: 3700: 3694: 3003: 2983: 2608: 2594:

and every other speedy deletion tag, which explictly says this in bold text. This comes under '

2565: 2545: 2479: 2426: 2385: 1880: 1787: 1749: 1569: 1550: 1174: 629: 489: 240:

Again: Why are we so inclusionist on new articles, yet the exact opposite in existing articles?

4419: 4341: 3544: 3528: 3226: 3150:

Huh? It hasn't been expanded, and this is the discussion about whether and how to expand it. —

2807:

and apostrophies used as scare quotes should all be considered to be scare quotes, of course.

2373: 2113: 1936:

necessary, however, and I cannot see your proposed new rule being useful in any other case. --

1163: 1116: 4127: 3628: 3500: 2595: 2493:

Hopefully not the wrong place but I couldn't find better. Browsing round I found this page -

1592: 1588: 1426: 658: 247: 4306:

deleting the article under these circumstances and having it re-created with proper sources?

3907: 3871: 3789: 3744:(M-W). Complex derivations that are not considered words in common use are not listed, like 3681: 3503:

yet there are probably thousands of such userpatges out there (I'm talking about stuff like

3288: 3211: 3155: 3103: 3059: 2907: 2453: 2413: 1778: 1549:

AfD - these are evidence that there should not be a CSD, because it is clearly contestable.

1146: 1127: 941: 908: 879: 862: 705: 685: 604: 453: 428: 139: 3673: 3555: 3496: 3439:

without ever having it be tagged/go into the category, it's important that we not shortcut

2195: 2167: 2153: 2131: 2105: 1981: 1977: 1964: 1956: 1648: 1230: 1183: 903:

speediable. I don't think there is any debate that an article like that should be deleted.

381:

It can potentially delay it up to 2 weeks if properly manipulated and with a little luck.--

4517: 4434: 4401: 4369: 4351:

For the record, I also agree that hoaxes should not be speediable, for the reasons above.

4285: 4020: 2964: 2588: 2335: 2289: 2090: 2042: 2012: 1989: 1676: 1283: 1244: 1200: 1190: 1096: 134:, but I think it needs wording that does not leave articles like these open to deletion. — 4084: 3691: 1874:

Generally speaking, articles which would pass AfD should almost never be speediable (see

680:

closing admin—then one of them is going to remove the prod, and that's the end of that. —

4202: 3457: 3347: 3270: 3117: 3084: 3041: 3018: 1894: 1860: 1763: 1714: 796: 508: 392: 265: 4481: 4474: 4255: 4098: 3813: 3386: 3321: 3243: 3193: 2879: 2840: 2808: 2746: 2690: 2648: 2436: 2308: 2269:

a disambiguation page. Then, it is decided the article should go back to its old name.

2231: 2203: 2186: 2143: 2081: 1937: 1822: 1807: 1729: 1694: 1515:

If you support it, BigDT, then can you answer my question - what articles on companies

1502: 1468: 1447: 1394: 1010: 981: 928: 4333: 4251: 662: 4444: 4386: 4091: 3672:

are words, thus making this use of erroneous sesquipedalia verba in official policy,

3374: 3313: 3309:

succeeds in its very limited aims, but there should be something between the current

3303: 3236: 3186: 3076: 2461: 2274: 2262: 2218: 2117: 2059:." That way, there's a catch all in there just in case someone wants to Wikilawyer. 1840: 1486: 1430: 1331: 1081: 342: 118:

Do you have any ideas about wording? I was going to suggest adding "...that does not

1955:

The present G4 means that a deleted redirect can never be reconsidered; contrary to

4415: 4337: 4295: 3540: 3524: 2715: 2682: 2369: 1635: 1254: 1055: 1020: 971: 811: 761: 735: 649: 639: 615: 600:

controversy. No amount of written rules are a good substitute for human judgment.

571: 547: 523: 498: 478: 382: 329: 302: 280: 255: 229: 205: 181: 156: 109: 3733: 546:

information on them on the internet at all to verify who released their albums.--

122:

assert the importance...", but I think this would include articles that assert a

4310: 4227: 4177: 4138: 4043: 3989: 3284: 3207: 3151: 3099: 3055: 2903: 2574: 2554: 2516: 2409: 2278: 2243: 2171: 2089:

No, all it takes is a different group of half-a-dozen considering the redirect.

1616: 1352:

So I would like to formalize the arrangement with a tag. Please take a look at

1262: 1142: 1123: 937: 904: 875: 858: 701: 681: 601: 449: 424: 135: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3741: 3737: 2607:

I should think anyone could remove a speedy tag that is placed out-of-process.

1422:

You cited an interesting example, it seems MyWikiBiz (which you linked to) has

3808: 3632: 2993: 2973: 2939: 2865: 2544:

The tag was correctly removed. Vanity is not a criterion for speedy deletion.

2536: 2158: 2060: 2027: 1596: 1560: 1530: 1493: 1363: 1187: 2329:

speedy deletion criteria for non-notable companies/spam/advertising, even if

4245:

how many of those were kept? Personally, I would like to see how this saves

2401:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 needs verifiable claims

2108:

has been made which involves modifying the R2 criterion. You are invited to

2639:

R4. Redirects using punctuation that does not appear in the target's title.

1908:

while Office Actions overrule everything here.) For the other criteria...

1162:

and we may as well allow such cross-namespace redirects to be speedied. --

4154:

to have an consensus to be speedyable, and I don't see that changing. --

2926:

can be speedied. Anything that is "just for the heckofit" quotes, like

1386: 3884:

As a potential compromise, I might suggest the precise wording used on

1258: 4087:

need to be taken to AfD. While awaiting deletion, an AfD notice and a

3475:- I should welcome a view as to whether camps are covered. I speedied 3420:

Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal#Failed_proposals

338:

agressively -- by PROD or AFD for a new article or by, say, adding a

4466:

I took the liberty of creating a template for this purpose. It is {{

3966:

Please help to amend this criteria to include all the fair use tags.

1054:

whether or not that was a true assertion, it still failed WP:BAND.--

4061:

Captain Underpants and the Terrible Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers

3256:

it either stays or gets a wider audience at AfD. That's how it was

3037:

Knowledge (XXG):Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Proposal/A7 refinement

2425:

Yes. I object to any widening of this already too-subjective rule.

2230:

Yes, but the "no rationale" one is already policy for 48 hours. --

2166:

It is not at all true that things that can be speedied for failing

4216: 4193: 4080: 2270: 2266: 2258: 1923:

A5 only applies when invoked by an AfD, so it doesn't matter here.

4395:

Talk Pages designed to encourage the creation of notable articles

3807:

If it is not in the dictionary, it is safe to say that this is a

3788:. Thus, suggesting the page is neither coherent nor salvageable. 2473:

Sure, I think they're worth consideration for deletion, just not

2242:

I've added this to I7. Feel free to reorganise as makes sense.

661:? Isn't it set up to deal with things like this. Even though the 3613:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Hamiltonlandscapers

2194:

Err, I just re-read that, you suggest it should be removed from

3618:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Skilledcontractors

3098:

10-minute-old pages with A7 should be stopped. Just a notion. —

1671:) not for the intent of warning about impending deletions, but 3693:

The word "unsalvageable" has been used in headlines by the NPR

259: 25: 3608:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:National seniors

3082:

anyway, aren't you? I was thinking more like 12-24 hours. --

1501:

Actually, the template doesn't work (I'm not a programmer).

1274:

Yes, such a difference will come out in discussion. This is

180:

and guarentee anything they want on the system for 5 days.--

3762:

an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content

3563:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Spaceandcolors

2957:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Expand A7

1492:

for the time being until this becomes the law of the land.

4516:

Thank you kindly! Bignate I will definitely use it :)

3631:

and it only serves the purpose to promote the subject".

2127:

I6 or a new one should be added for new policy on WP:FUC

1821:

Nevermind... these templates seem to be around already!

522:

notable claim that can't be verified via the internet?--

3573:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Consilient

3568:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Hpahlavan1

3452: 2681:

votes. Many redirects have single- or double-quotes as

1587:

the inclusion of such a criteria. What about "It is an

313:

Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1

4291:

tag on a page rather than go through listing it as an

2839:

for an example of what this criteria would look like.

1216:

I would suggest adding this as a user page criterion:

696:

Don't be silly, they don't make keep votes, they make

3603:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Carrj003

3593:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:TheGrace

2837:'Anti-Pope' Gregory XVII → Clemente_Domínguez_y_Gómez 1408:

Um... I think it's going to be very difficult to get

3598:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Kinjili

3418:

Everyone in this discussion should be aware of/read

2273:

is deleted and the article is moved there. However,

1984:, to ensure that there is still consensus to delete. 3760:? Furthermore, consider the phrase it is used in: 3588:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Maozbj

3583:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Wvvhtv

3578:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:Leonso

3268:, according to at least one survey of the data. -- 2142:Shouldn't this page be updated to reflect this? -- 857:

counter-examples here would not be covered by it. —

4097:tag will ensure nobody takes the article as fact. 4360:And remember, there is the occasional hoax, like 1930:A8, as noted, would have to overrule an AfD keep. 18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Criteria for speedy deletion 2200:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 1233:, where such pages are always speedy deleted. -- 315:and its talk page contain more on these issues. 4412:or notes that would help in creating an article 2786:Also, how would this CSD criteria affect, say, 2723:Examples include 10 of the 13 nominations from 3888:, which is currently "irredeemably confused". 3430:failed with 58% support (too subjective), and 1442:Well, I think I have a partial solution: see 1278:this should be a criterion for deletion, but 8: 3898:Missing fair-use rationale (I6) needs teeth 3780:. It makes more sense to use the adjective 1971:correct. I suggest the following language: 1068:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion of vanity articles 717:Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion/NSAMC 4468:User:BigNate37/TM/Future article talk page 3434:failed with 37% support (too vague). Also 3072:After a week, you're faster going through 1647:editors who simply don't know the rules. 444:assert the importance..." or "...does not 3756:. Would you find it odd if someone said, 3039:to get the widest possible consensus. -- 1328:Special:Contributions/Forgotten gentleman 1322:are still logged. As an example, compare 1139:Template:Permission from license selector 888:But is what's being done what's right? -- 3784:, and definitively describing the noun, 3977:Cannot find evidence that person exists 3426:failed with 69% support (at the time), 3380:can be. Although I'm loathe to suggest 2553:Even if removed by the page creator? -- 1632:Knowledge (XXG):Requested templates#CSD 4223:(I didn't uderstand the abbreviation.) 3676:, all the more abnormal. The use of a 2874:misapplying CSD criteria, or applying 2325:I think Knowledge (XXG) already has a 1626:Warning new users about speedy deletes 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4083:existed? These kind of violations of 2955:Moved recent discussion from section 2353:the deleted title (for example, when 1066:I think a problem is the sentence in 7: 4281:How much time does it take to put a 3436:vanity articles unimproved in 3 days 1378:G10 or A9 addition for spam articles 3758:That fruit was tastablely delicious 2302:There is actually a good reason to 2972:groups, clubs, bands or people. -- 1959:; since there is no way to make a 1229:This would reflect the reality at 24: 2395:Plausible assertion of notability 1595:that masquerades as an article"? 1282:a criterion for speedy deletion. 3652:Oxford English Dictionary Online 1638:suggested there be a version of 29: 4380:Unfortunately, as important as 3886:Knowledge (XXG):Patent nonsense 3451:and the poll itself was closed 3266:Most prods suceed in their goal 1761:be confusing or surprising? -- 1340:Proposal for a new CSD template 666:that an active AfD discussion. 4221:President of the United States 3983:Nordie Tullion a.k.a. Nordie4u 3629:non-notable company or product 1620:20:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC) 1: 4390:06:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC) 4382:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 4373:17:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 4356:13:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 4320:00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) 4124:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 3893:04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC) 3875:20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 3832:13:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 3803:10:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC) 2533:Knowledge (XXG):Autobiography 1673:to notify the original author 1651:already says (2nd paragraph) 2685:, which are being nominated 852:Any objection to adding "... 448:assert the importance...". — 4521:20:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 4500:19:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 4452:19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 4438:19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 4424:18:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 4414:.(...)" (emphasis mine). -- 4405:18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 4346:21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4274:21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4237:20:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4211:20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4187:20:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4164:19:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4148:19:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4117:19:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4074:19:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4053:19:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4031:18:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 4015:18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 3999:17:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 3972:07:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 3793:17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 3704:23:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 3685:19:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 3636:09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC) 3549:00:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 3533:23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 3485:15:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 3466:22:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3394:08:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 3356:22:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 3329:16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC) 3295:23:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 3279:03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 3251:23:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3218:19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3201:18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3176:18:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3162:18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3146:18:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3126:20:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3110:18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3093:18:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3066:18:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3050:18:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3027:17:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 3007:23:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC) 2997:08:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 2987:05:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 2977:00:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC) 2943:02:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 2914:00:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 2898:22:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2869:21:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2859:20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2827:20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2802:19:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2782:19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2765:20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2719:19:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2709:19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2667:20:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 2612:01:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 2603:01:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC) 2580:08:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2569:08:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2560:08:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2549:20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 2540:14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 2522:11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 2483:21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2468:21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2440:01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC) 2430:21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2420:16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) 2389:21:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2378:21:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2339:05:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2247:04:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC) 2235:07:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2222:07:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2207:06:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2190:06:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2175:01:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2162:00:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 1791:21:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 1712:with a templated trout. -- 1600:10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC) 1212:Suggested U3 - attack pages 779:something like 90% of prods 754:03:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 730:07:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 676:07:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 4543: 3554:Have a look at this, from 2344:Criterion G6: Housekeeping 2317: 2312:22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 2293:16:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 2282:10:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 2147:08:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 2122:00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2094:16:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2085:05:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2064:02:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2046:02:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2031:01:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2016:02:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 2006:23:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 1993:23:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 1941:22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 1903:02:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 1884:17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1869:17:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1844:20:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1831:20:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1816:17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1782:03:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 1772:02:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC) 1753:17:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1738:17:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1723:17:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1703:16:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1687:15:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1573:17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1564:12:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1554:01:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1534:00:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 1524:23:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1511:20:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1497:17:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1477:15:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1434:15:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1418:15:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1403:14:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1367:14:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1335:00:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1302:02:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 1287:18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1270:18:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1248:16:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1238:13:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1204:16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1194:08:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1178:00:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 1167:21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 1151:23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 1132:12:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 1085:12:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC) 1059:14:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 1049:07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 1024:20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 1014:19:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 1004:19:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 985:19:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 975:18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 965:17:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 948:19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 932:16:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 913:16:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 898:15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 884:12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 869:08:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 835:15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 815:15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 805:14:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 792:how it is supposed to work 765:06:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 739:15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 710:12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 692:07:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 575:20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 565:19:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 551:18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 541:15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 401:07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 386:20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 284:07:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 274:07:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 233:06:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 223:19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 209:18:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 200:15:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 103:A7 needs verifiable claims 4480:on it and get rid of it. 2936:Tim "the tool man" Taylor 2628:Any support for a CSD R4? 2357:or reversing a contested 1659:Perhaps we should create 1107:20:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 989:The thing is, if there's 653:22:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 643:22:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 633:20:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 619:19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 608:16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 527:19:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 517:16:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 502:15:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 493:20:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 482:15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC) 472:20:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 460:18:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 435:18:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 377:18:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 357:18:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 333:15:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 323:06:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 306:06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 185:06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 175:06:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 160:06:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 146:04:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 113:04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC) 3772:. We are suggesting the 3768:modifies the adjective, 2734:MOBBSTARR' → Dice and k9 2598:' if done repeatedly. -- 2318:I still can't see how... 1324:User:Forgotten gentleman 252:custom stronger than law 4362:Dominion of Melchizedek 3853:almost always could be 3776:of the page can not be 3558:in the last four days: 3491:New userpage criterion? 2573:Thanks - useful info -- 2489:Odd (non)deletion query 3696:and the New York Times 3641:Usage of Unsalvageably 2100:Suggested change in R2 1978:irreversible decisions 1963:redirect from A to B. 1669:deletion notifications 3863:irredeemably confused 3505:User:Group5motorsport 3428:unremarkable websites 2355:merging pagehistories 1786:Two reasons: A7, T1. 1655:everyone was new once 42:of past discussions. 3943:! Yet people abuse 3938:Non-free fair use in 3918:Non-free fair use in 3699:. It's a real word. 3521:User:Unisoftdatatech 3360:Something like that 2924:John "the idiot" Doe 2731:from 7 August 2006, 1757:Why should a speedy 1640:template:PRODWarning 4364:, which is notable 2789:Life's Rich Pageant 2741:, 6 of the 16 from 2729:"Hate Me" → Hate Me 2725:17 August 2006 RfDs 1661:template:CSDWarning 1593:non-notable company 1137:the institution of 1090:CSD I3 and Fair Use 132:able to be verified 3432:unremarkable clubs 3424:unremarkable bands 2736:from 3 August 2006 2596:avoidant vandalism 1850:A# trumped by AFD? 1667:(as a new pair of 1465:Template:db-advert 1296:Christopher Parham 466:Christopher Parham 413:Anthony Iannaccone 351:Christopher Parham 317:Christopher Parham 169:Christopher Parham 126:importance (e.g., 4344: 4162: 4072: 4013: 3547: 3174: 3144: 2800: 2780: 2743:30 July 2006 RfDs 2376: 1920:A4 doesn't exist. 1685: 1644:template:PRODNote 1002: 963: 896: 833: 563: 539: 221: 198: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4534: 4491: 4488: 4485: 4479: 4473: 4422: 4340: 4315: 4309: 4300: 4294: 4290: 4284: 4265: 4262: 4259: 4232: 4226: 4182: 4176: 4158: 4143: 4137: 4108: 4105: 4102: 4096: 4090: 4068: 4048: 4042: 4028: 4009: 3994: 3988: 3962: 3956: 3952: 3946: 3942: 3936: 3932: 3926: 3922: 3916: 3912: 3906: 3823: 3820: 3817: 3543: 3531: 3513:User:Flatratefax 3389: 3379: 3373: 3369: 3363: 3343: 3337: 3324: 3318: 3312: 3308: 3302: 3246: 3241: 3235: 3231: 3225: 3196: 3191: 3185: 3170: 3140: 3081: 3075: 2889: 2886: 2883: 2850: 2847: 2844: 2818: 2815: 2812: 2796: 2776: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2700: 2697: 2694: 2658: 2655: 2652: 2593: 2587: 2513:SShields Couture 2372: 1827: 1812: 1804:example template 1800:example template 1744:I think this is 1734: 1699: 1679: 1665:template:CSDNote 1585:strongly support 1507: 1491: 1485: 1473: 1399: 1362:. Any thoughts? 1361: 1355: 1121: 1115: 1104: 998: 959: 892: 829: 752: 750: 728: 726: 674: 672: 559: 535: 347: 341: 217: 194: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4542: 4541: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4498: 4489: 4486: 4483: 4477: 4471: 4418: 4397: 4370:Septentrionalis 4311: 4307: 4298: 4292: 4288: 4282: 4272: 4263: 4260: 4257: 4228: 4224: 4178: 4174: 4139: 4135: 4115: 4106: 4103: 4100: 4094: 4088: 4044: 4040: 4024: 3990: 3986: 3979: 3960: 3954: 3950: 3948:Film-screenshot 3944: 3940: 3934: 3930: 3928:DisneyCharacter 3924: 3920: 3914: 3910: 3904: 3900: 3830: 3821: 3818: 3815: 3764:. This implies 3643: 3527: 3493: 3387: 3377: 3371: 3367: 3361: 3341: 3335: 3322: 3316: 3310: 3306: 3300: 3260:and how it was 3244: 3239: 3233: 3229: 3223: 3194: 3189: 3183: 3079: 3073: 3031:P.S. There's a 2969:up for deletion 2951: 2896: 2887: 2884: 2881: 2857: 2848: 2845: 2842: 2825: 2816: 2813: 2810: 2763: 2754: 2751: 2748: 2707: 2698: 2695: 2692: 2675: 2665: 2656: 2653: 2650: 2635: 2630: 2591: 2585: 2491: 2454:buyer's remorse 2450: 2397: 2346: 2320: 2290:Septentrionalis 2254: 2129: 2102: 2091:Septentrionalis 2057:Deletion review 2043:Septentrionalis 2013:Septentrionalis 1990:Septentrionalis 1953: 1951:G4 on redirects 1852: 1823: 1808: 1730: 1695: 1628: 1503: 1489: 1483: 1469: 1444:Template:PrSpam 1395: 1380: 1359: 1353: 1342: 1312: 1310:U2 modification 1284:Septentrionalis 1245:Septentrionalis 1214: 1201:Septentrionalis 1159: 1119: 1113: 1100: 1092: 748: 746: 724: 722: 670: 668: 345: 339: 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4540: 4538: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4494: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4449:EngineerScotty 4427: 4426: 4396: 4393: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4268: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4167: 4166: 4156:badlydrawnjeff 4120: 4119: 4111: 4079:have evidence 4076: 4066:badlydrawnjeff 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4007:badlydrawnjeff 3978: 3975: 3899: 3896: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3826: 3734:systematically 3642: 3639: 3621: 3620: 3615: 3610: 3605: 3600: 3595: 3590: 3585: 3580: 3575: 3570: 3565: 3552: 3551: 3492: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3477:Camp Horseshoe 3469: 3468: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3168:badlydrawnjeff 3138:badlydrawnjeff 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3029: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 2962: 2961: 2950: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2932:"Frank" Beamer 2928:"Michael Vick" 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2892: 2853: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2821: 2794:badlydrawnjeff 2784: 2774:badlydrawnjeff 2769: 2768: 2767: 2759: 2703: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2661: 2641: 2634: 2631: 2629: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2542: 2531:on Afd as per 2490: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2396: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2345: 2342: 2319: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2298: 2296: 2295: 2253: 2250: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2225: 2224: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2128: 2125: 2110:the discussion 2101: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2087: 2049: 2048: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 1987: 1986: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1924: 1921: 1918: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1802:) and newbies 1795: 1794: 1793: 1784: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1705: 1627: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1612: 1603: 1602: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1513: 1461: 1437: 1436: 1420: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1341: 1338: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1227: 1226: 1213: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1180: 1158: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1134: 1091: 1088: 1078: 1077: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 996:badlydrawnjeff 957:badlydrawnjeff 952: 951: 950: 890:badlydrawnjeff 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 841: 827:badlydrawnjeff 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 712: 645: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 557:badlydrawnjeff 533:badlydrawnjeff 486: 485: 484: 462: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 374:Dragons flight 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 298: 297: 296: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 287: 286: 244: 243: 242: 215:badlydrawnjeff 192:badlydrawnjeff 164: 163: 162: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4539: 4522: 4519: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4501: 4497: 4493: 4492: 4476: 4469: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4453: 4450: 4446: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4436: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4403: 4394: 4392: 4391: 4388: 4383: 4374: 4371: 4367: 4363: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4354: 4350: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4335: 4329: 4321: 4318: 4316: 4314: 4304: 4297: 4287: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4271: 4267: 4266: 4253: 4248: 4238: 4235: 4233: 4231: 4222: 4218: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4209: 4208: 4204: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4185: 4183: 4181: 4172: 4165: 4161: 4157: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4146: 4144: 4142: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4118: 4114: 4110: 4109: 4093: 4086: 4082: 4077: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4062: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4051: 4049: 4047: 4032: 4029: 4027: 4022: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4003: 4002: 4001: 4000: 3997: 3995: 3993: 3984: 3976: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3967: 3959: 3958:Tv-screenshot 3949: 3939: 3929: 3919: 3909: 3897: 3895: 3894: 3891: 3887: 3876: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3864: 3858: 3857: 3852: 3851: 3845: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3824: 3810: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3801: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3782:unsalvageable 3779: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3766:unsalvageably 3763: 3759: 3755: 3754: 3753:unsalvageably 3749: 3748: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3730: 3725: 3724: 3723:unsalvageably 3719: 3718: 3713: 3712: 3711:unsalvageable 3708:Point taken, 3707: 3706: 3705: 3702: 3698: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3683: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3670: 3669:unsalvageable 3665: 3664: 3659: 3658: 3657:unsalvageably 3653: 3649: 3648: 3647:Unsalvageably 3640: 3638: 3637: 3634: 3630: 3625: 3619: 3616: 3614: 3611: 3609: 3606: 3604: 3601: 3599: 3596: 3594: 3591: 3589: 3586: 3584: 3581: 3579: 3576: 3574: 3571: 3569: 3566: 3564: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3557: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3517:User:Motargem 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3490: 3486: 3483: 3478: 3474: 3471: 3470: 3467: 3464: 3463: 3459: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3395: 3392: 3390: 3383: 3376: 3366: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3354: 3353: 3349: 3340: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3327: 3325: 3315: 3305: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3292: 3291: 3286: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3277: 3276: 3272: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3249: 3247: 3238: 3228: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3209: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3199: 3197: 3188: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3159: 3158: 3153: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3135: 3127: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3078: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3063: 3062: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3048: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3028: 3025: 3024: 3020: 3014: 3008: 3005: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2995: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2985: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2975: 2970: 2966: 2960: 2958: 2953: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2915: 2911: 2910: 2905: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2895: 2891: 2890: 2877: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2851: 2838: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2819: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2785: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2744: 2740: 2739:(bad example) 2737: 2735: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2640: 2637: 2636: 2632: 2627: 2613: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2601: 2597: 2590: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2558: 2556: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2547: 2543: 2541: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2529:Stacy Shields 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2520: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2495:Stacy Shields 2488: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2466: 2463: 2457: 2455: 2447: 2441: 2438: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2428: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2416: 2411: 2406: 2402: 2394: 2390: 2387: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2366: 2365:right place. 2362: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2343: 2341: 2340: 2337: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2313: 2310: 2305: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2294: 2291: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2280: 2276: 2275:steel (metal) 2272: 2268: 2264: 2263:steel (metal) 2260: 2251: 2249: 2248: 2245: 2236: 2233: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2208: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2176: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2155: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2145: 2140: 2138: 2133: 2126: 2124: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2099: 2095: 2092: 2088: 2086: 2083: 2078: 2075:because it's 2073: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2062: 2058: 2054: 2047: 2044: 2040: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2029: 2017: 2014: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2004: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1991: 1985: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1970: 1969:proceedurally 1966: 1962: 1958: 1950: 1942: 1939: 1934: 1929: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1915: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1900: 1896: 1891: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1882: 1877: 1876:uncontestable 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1867: 1866: 1862: 1857: 1849: 1845: 1842: 1838: 1832: 1828: 1826: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1813: 1811: 1805: 1801: 1796: 1792: 1789: 1785: 1783: 1780: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1765: 1760: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1733: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1721: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1706: 1704: 1700: 1698: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1683: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1656: 1650: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1625: 1621: 1618: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589:advertisement 1586: 1582: 1581: 1574: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1562: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1552: 1547: 1546: 1535: 1532: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1512: 1508: 1506: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1495: 1488: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1474: 1472: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1419: 1416: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1400: 1398: 1392: 1388: 1383: 1377: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1358: 1350: 1346: 1339: 1337: 1336: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320:contributions 1317: 1309: 1303: 1300: 1297: 1292: 1288: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1236: 1232: 1224: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1211: 1205: 1202: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1179: 1176: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1135: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1118: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1103: 1098: 1089: 1087: 1086: 1083: 1076: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070:which reads: 1069: 1060: 1057: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1025: 1022: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1001: 997: 992: 988: 987: 986: 983: 978: 977: 976: 973: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 953: 949: 945: 944: 939: 935: 934: 933: 930: 925: 920: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 901: 900: 899: 895: 891: 887: 886: 885: 881: 877: 873: 872: 871: 870: 866: 865: 860: 855: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 824: 816: 813: 808: 807: 806: 803: 802: 798: 793: 789: 785: 780: 776: 766: 763: 758: 757: 756: 755: 753: 742: 741: 740: 737: 732: 731: 729: 718: 713: 711: 707: 703: 699: 698:Do Not Delete 695: 694: 693: 689: 688: 683: 678: 677: 675: 664: 663:Verifiability 660: 656: 655: 654: 651: 646: 644: 641: 636: 635: 634: 631: 627: 622: 621: 620: 617: 612: 611: 610: 609: 606: 603: 598: 576: 573: 568: 567: 566: 562: 558: 554: 553: 552: 549: 544: 543: 542: 538: 534: 530: 529: 528: 525: 520: 519: 518: 515: 514: 510: 505: 504: 503: 500: 496: 495: 494: 491: 487: 483: 480: 475: 474: 473: 470: 467: 463: 461: 457: 456: 451: 447: 443: 439: 438: 437: 436: 432: 431: 426: 422: 416: 414: 402: 399: 398: 394: 389: 388: 387: 384: 380: 379: 378: 375: 370: 369: 358: 355: 352: 344: 336: 335: 334: 331: 326: 325: 324: 321: 318: 314: 309: 308: 307: 304: 299: 285: 282: 277: 276: 275: 272: 271: 267: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 231: 226: 225: 224: 220: 216: 212: 211: 210: 207: 203: 202: 201: 197: 193: 188: 187: 186: 183: 178: 177: 176: 173: 170: 165: 161: 158: 154: 149: 148: 147: 143: 142: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 116: 115: 114: 111: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4482: 4411: 4398: 4379: 4365: 4330: 4326: 4312: 4302: 4256: 4246: 4243: 4229: 4201: 4197: 4179: 4170: 4168: 4140: 4131: 4121: 4099: 4059: 4045: 4037: 4025: 3991: 3980: 3965: 3901: 3883: 3862: 3861: 3855: 3854: 3849: 3848: 3843: 3839: 3814: 3785: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3752: 3751: 3746: 3745: 3728: 3727: 3722: 3721: 3716: 3715: 3710: 3709: 3677: 3668: 3667: 3662: 3661: 3656: 3655: 3651: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3626: 3622: 3553: 3509:User:Junwang 3494: 3472: 3456: 3440: 3381: 3346: 3289: 3269: 3261: 3257: 3212: 3156: 3116: 3104: 3083: 3060: 3040: 3032: 3017: 2963: 2954: 2949:Expanding A7 2908: 2880: 2841: 2833: 2809: 2787: 2747: 2738: 2732: 2691: 2686: 2683:scare quotes 2678: 2676: 2649: 2644: 2643: 2638: 2600:Sam Blanning 2577: 2557: 2519: 2505: 2492: 2474: 2458: 2451: 2448:non-criteria 2414: 2404: 2398: 2367: 2363: 2350: 2347: 2330: 2326: 2324: 2321: 2303: 2297: 2255: 2241: 2152:I think the 2141: 2135: 2130: 2116: 2103: 2076: 2071: 2050: 2038: 2024: 2003:Sam Blanning 1988: 1975: 1968: 1960: 1954: 1913: 1893: 1875: 1859: 1855: 1853: 1824: 1809: 1797: 1762: 1758: 1745: 1731: 1713: 1709: 1696: 1672: 1652: 1636:user:Deon555 1629: 1607: 1584: 1521:Sam Blanning 1516: 1504: 1470: 1454: 1415:Sam Blanning 1409: 1396: 1384: 1381: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1319: 1315: 1313: 1279: 1275: 1267:Sam Blanning 1255:Adolf Hitler 1235:Sam Blanning 1228: 1222:Attack pages 1220: 1215: 1164:David Mestel 1160: 1101: 1093: 1079: 1074: 1065: 990: 942: 923: 918: 863: 853: 851: 795: 791: 787: 783: 697: 686: 657:Why not use 625: 596: 593: 507: 454: 445: 441: 429: 420: 417: 409: 391: 264: 256:Jackie Beere 239: 152: 140: 131: 127: 123: 119: 106: 78: 43: 37: 4247:significant 3981:Please see 3872:JustOneJake 3790:JustOneJake 3774:incoherence 3742:beautifully 3740:(M-W), and 3738:accountably 3717:salvageably 3682:JustOneJake 3663:salvageably 3445:74% support 2876:WP:SNOWBALL 2252:G6 addition 1779:Enigmatical 1357:Db-descpage 1263:Roy Whiting 446:+reasonable 120:+verifiably 36:This is an 4518:Mathiastck 4435:Mathiastck 4402:Mathiastck 3969:Kevin_b_er 3844:Incoherent 3840:incoherent 3809:nonce word 3770:incoherent 3747:tastablely 3732:, such as 3482:BlueValour 2965:A template 2336:theProject 1677:Rick Block 1046:Kevin_b_er 794:, IMO. -- 777:Actually, 124:reasonable 95:Archive 15 90:Archive 14 85:Archive 13 79:Archive 12 73:Archive 11 68:Archive 10 4366:as a hoax 3850:coherence 3678:real word 3388:Yomangani 3323:Yomangani 3245:Yomangani 3195:Yomangani 2527:I've put 2437:Aquillion 2405:plausibly 2309:Aquillion 2265:and make 2232:Ned Scott 2204:Ned Scott 2187:Ned Scott 2144:Ned Scott 2134:states: " 2082:Aquillion 1976:To avoid 1961:different 1938:Aquillion 1825:SB_Johnny 1810:SB_Johnny 1746:sometimes 1732:SB_Johnny 1697:SB_Johnny 1505:SB_Johnny 1471:SB_Johnny 1448:MyWikiBiz 1397:SB_Johnny 1391:WP:WPSPAM 1157:Redirects 1011:Yomangani 982:Yomangani 929:Yomangani 919:assertion 854:plausibly 60:Archive 5 4387:Fagstein 4132:required 3856:salvaged 3778:salvaged 3262:accepted 3258:designed 3227:db-owner 2687:en masse 2673:Comments 2633:Proposal 2509:contribs 2499:Sshields 2359:pagemove 2327:de facto 2219:Carnildo 2106:proposal 2077:possible 2053:WP:BEANS 1890:WP:POINT 1841:Ardric47 1630:Over at 1591:about a 1517:wouldn't 1458:contribs 1332:Ardric47 1316:accounts 1117:or-fu-re 1082:Tyrenius 1019:there.-- 628:be one. 4416:Sherool 4338:Rossami 4128:BigNate 3908:fairuse 3736:(M-W), 3541:Rossami 3525:Sherool 3501:WP:USER 3382:another 2716:Crossmr 2370:Rossami 2331:de jure 1608:support 1606:I also 1427:WP:CORP 1259:Pol Pot 1056:Crossmr 1021:Crossmr 972:Crossmr 812:Crossmr 762:Crossmr 736:Crossmr 700:votes. 659:WP:PROD 650:Crossmr 640:Crossmr 616:Crossmr 572:Crossmr 548:Crossmr 524:Crossmr 499:Crossmr 479:Crossmr 383:Crossmr 330:Crossmr 303:Crossmr 281:Crossmr 248:WP:BITE 230:Crossmr 206:Crossmr 182:Crossmr 157:Crossmr 110:Crossmr 39:archive 4420:(talk) 4342:(talk) 4313:Chidom 4286:speedy 4230:Chidom 4180:Chidom 4141:Chidom 4046:Chidom 3992:Chidom 3674:CSD G1 3654:, and 3556:WP:MFD 3545:(talk) 3529:(talk) 3497:WP:NOT 3422:where 3285:Centrx 3208:Centrx 3152:Centrx 3100:Centrx 3056:Centrx 2904:Centrx 2589:db-bio 2475:speedy 2410:Centrx 2399:After 2374:(talk) 2279:Kjkolb 2244:Jkelly 2196:WP:FUC 2172:Jkelly 2168:WP:FUC 2154:WP:FUC 2132:WP:FUC 1982:WP:RfD 1965:WP:DRV 1957:WP:NBD 1917:arise. 1649:WP:CSD 1617:Lundse 1424:copied 1299:(talk) 1231:WP:MFD 1184:WP:RFD 1143:Stifle 1124:Stifle 938:Centrx 924:better 905:Stifle 876:Stifle 859:Centrx 702:Stifle 682:Centrx 605:(talk) 602:Friday 469:(talk) 450:Centrx 442:+truly 425:Centrx 354:(talk) 320:(talk) 246:Uhmm, 172:(talk) 136:Centrx 4475:db-u1 4217:POTUS 4198:false 4194:POTUS 4085:WP:OR 4081:Jesus 4026:juice 4021:Mango 3866:, by 3633:MER-C 3473:Camps 3365:preA7 3339:preA7 2994:Swift 2974:Swift 2940:BigDT 2866:BigDT 2575:Nigel 2555:Nigel 2537:JoJan 2517:Nigel 2462:mikka 2271:Steel 2267:steel 2259:steel 2202:. -- 2159:BigDT 2061:BigDT 2028:BigDT 1927:this. 1806:). -- 1611:them. 1597:MER-C 1561:BigDT 1531:BigDT 1494:BigDT 1373:(UTC) 1364:BigDT 1326:with 1188:Kusma 1102:juice 1097:Mango 784:don't 16:< 4487:Nate 4445:prod 4353:Deco 4334:WP:V 4261:Nate 4252:WP:V 4219:" = 4207:blis 4160:talk 4104:Nate 4092:hoax 4070:talk 4011:talk 3953:and 3890:Deco 3868:Deco 3819:Nate 3800:Deco 3786:page 3750:and 3720:are 3701:Deco 3666:nor 3462:blis 3453:here 3449:here 3375:prod 3352:blis 3314:prod 3304:prod 3290:talk 3275:blis 3237:prod 3213:talk 3187:prod 3172:talk 3157:talk 3142:talk 3122:blis 3105:talk 3089:blis 3077:prod 3061:talk 3046:blis 3023:blis 3004:Deco 2984:Deco 2909:talk 2885:Nate 2846:Nate 2814:Nate 2798:talk 2778:talk 2752:Nate 2696:Nate 2679:keep 2654:Nate 2609:Deco 2566:Deco 2546:Deco 2503:talk 2480:Deco 2427:Deco 2415:talk 2386:Deco 2112:. -- 1914:does 1899:blis 1881:Deco 1865:blis 1856:keep 1788:Deco 1768:blis 1759:ever 1750:Deco 1719:blis 1710:them 1682:talk 1663:and 1570:Deco 1551:Deco 1487:prod 1452:talk 1387:this 1191:(討論) 1175:Deco 1147:talk 1128:talk 1000:talk 961:talk 943:talk 909:talk 894:talk 880:talk 864:talk 831:talk 801:blis 706:talk 687:talk 630:Deco 597:then 561:talk 537:talk 513:blis 490:Deco 455:talk 430:talk 397:blis 343:fact 270:blis 219:talk 196:talk 141:talk 4496:(T) 4484:Big 4303:one 4296:afd 4270:(T) 4258:Big 4203:nae 4171:not 4113:(T) 4101:Big 3913:or 3828:(T) 3816:Big 3729:-ly 3458:nae 3441:any 3348:nae 3271:nae 3118:nae 3085:nae 3042:nae 3033:lot 3019:nae 2967:is 2930:or 2894:(T) 2882:Big 2855:(T) 2843:Big 2823:(T) 2811:Big 2761:(T) 2749:Big 2705:(T) 2693:Big 2663:(T) 2651:Big 2535:. 2465:(t) 2456:? 2304:not 2261:to 2118:(t) 2114:Zoz 2072:but 2039:and 1895:nae 1861:nae 1829:| 1814:| 1764:nae 1736:| 1715:nae 1701:| 1642:or 1509:| 1475:| 1431:Rob 1410:any 1401:| 1389:]. 1280:not 1276:why 991:any 797:nae 747:Ans 723:Ans 669:Ans 626:not 509:nae 393:nae 266:nae 260:OBE 128:not 4490:37 4478:}} 4472:{{ 4299:}} 4293:{{ 4289:}} 4283:{{ 4264:37 4254:. 4107:37 4095:}} 4089:{{ 4005:-- 3961:}} 3955:{{ 3951:}} 3945:{{ 3941:}} 3935:{{ 3931:}} 3925:{{ 3921:}} 3915:{{ 3911:}} 3905:{{ 3842:. 3822:37 3519:, 3515:, 3511:, 3507:, 3378:}} 3372:{{ 3368:}} 3362:{{ 3342:}} 3336:{{ 3317:}} 3311:{{ 3307:}} 3301:{{ 3293:• 3240:}} 3234:{{ 3230:}} 3224:{{ 3216:• 3190:}} 3184:{{ 3160:• 3108:• 3080:}} 3074:{{ 3064:• 2992:-- 2912:• 2888:37 2849:37 2817:37 2772:-- 2755:37 2727:, 2699:37 2689:. 2657:37 2592:}} 2586:{{ 2435:-- 2418:• 2351:to 2307:-- 2139:" 2104:A 1634:, 1583:I 1490:}} 1484:{{ 1413:-- 1360:}} 1354:{{ 1330:. 1261:, 1257:, 1149:) 1130:) 1122:. 1120:}} 1114:{{ 955:-- 946:• 911:) 882:) 867:• 788:do 751:ll 727:ll 708:) 690:• 673:ll 458:• 433:• 421:is 346:}} 340:{{ 190:-- 144:• 64:← 4308:— 4225:— 4215:" 4205:' 4175:— 4136:— 4041:— 3987:— 3499:/ 3460:' 3350:' 3287:→ 3273:' 3210:→ 3154:→ 3120:' 3102:→ 3087:' 3058:→ 3044:' 3021:' 2959:. 2906:→ 2506:· 2501:( 2412:→ 2408:— 1897:' 1863:' 1766:' 1717:' 1684:) 1680:( 1657:. 1455:· 1450:( 1253:( 1145:( 1126:( 940:→ 907:( 878:( 861:→ 799:' 749:e 725:e 704:( 684:→ 671:e 511:' 452:→ 427:→ 395:' 268:' 138:→ 50:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 12 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index