688:. What I fail to get is this. When one tries to create a previously deleted category, there's this big honking pink box that tells you that the category has been previously deleted and a pointer to the CFD discussion. Now when re-creating an article that was previously deleted at AFD, it's theoretically possible to address the issues that led to the deletion of the first article in the content of the new article. This is not possible when creating a category. Wouldn't it be better to challenge the CFD close, first with the closing admin and then here at DRV,
491:. I don't think there is a problem with overcategorization as it relates to halls of fame, because if the hall of fame is populated with notable people, then by definition, the category is itself probably worthwhile. For example, if someone created a category for "City of Topeka Sushi Chef Hall of Fame inductees"--most of the members are not likely to be notable, and therefore the category itself is not notable. I would propose exempting Halls of Fame from the Awards overcategorization guideline. --
1873:) and compile there information you have found in newspapers, magazines, and news sites along with the source each piece of information came from. Then when the article is restored, you will have that information available along with the source for each fact. In regard to who the band recorded with, you will have to figure out what sources there are that confirm that Azmyth recorded with them. Once we know what those sources are, we can judge how reliable they are. --
1637:
music competition.Pat Traver's Battle Of The Bands / Shredder
Shootout (2009)(Notable Resources were on page.)(Was judged by several high caliber judges including Mark Smith, who wrote the score for "The Last Of The Mohicans)(There are additional references to back this up)The band has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network.Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture. "
251:
extremely difficult for a user to find the category he's likely to be looking for. So not every verifiable fact should be categorized (which would in effect recapitulate the entire article), nor should categories duplicate every article's connection to every other article (which is what "what links here" is for). Maybe you think we should also rely upon a WP user to just "ignore" any information in an article's
413:; his article mentions no connection with Alabama beyond birthplace, and so nothing for which he is notable was done there...which doesn't give me much confidence in the relevance of this honor to the inductees beyond any "Sportspeople from Foo" category. So my recommendation is instead to focus on improving the article to the point that it can clearly justify a category; I don't think it does at present.
608:. You would get more interest and discussion on that. If the rule is that halls of fame are by definition awards and lead to overcategorization, then let's get rid of all of them. If there is some guideline, like a national hall of fame is OK, but state halls of fame are not, or if music halls of fame are OK, but sports halls are not, let's work that out. --
526:
does. This means that if you send this back to CfD, essentially the same users will have the same discussion and they'll reach the same conclusion. A different admin will close it in exactly the same way, and the user who raised the DRV will still be none the wiser about why. It's a very, very longstanding problem, and I don't know how to deal with it.—
721:. It shows up right above the editing window, with the header "A page with this title has previously been deleted." All previously deleted content automatically shows this notice whenever someone tries to recreate it. You created the category first and then populated it, so you would have seen the category page before populating it with articles.
509:
had two participants. We should at least allow the contributor to have input into a discussion on the deletion of the category. I recognise this is largely IAR but here I don't think the purpose served by striclty applying the rule (G4) in this case outweighs the benefit of giving this discussion another run. --
525:
The key to understanding CfD is that participation is restricted to the relatively few users who care, which means most discussions are closed with little participation; and also that every CfD is a judgment call, because CfD doesn't have objectively-assessable criteria in the same way that, say, AfD
431:
I wasn't aware that the quality of an article was justification for creating a category. I had intended my hours of work building up this category as a prelude to working on improving the article, but instead it has been a prelude to arguing against deleting verifiable information on the premise that
362:
I guess my biggest question is, what would be said in a new CFD that wasn't said before? Would someone be able to counter the characterization of this as just a "minor sporting award"? Could someone shed some light here on the significance of state sports halls of fame overall, and the significance
1636:
The Band has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary
Knowledge standards, including verifiability. OCALA, Orange Springs, Florida The band has won or placed in a major
1041:
I am not sure about notability, but it is sufficient informative that it passes G11. However, it has no external references at all , except to his facebook page and an advertisement for his film. There will need to be some better from sources unrelated to him, such as reviews of his films, if it is
884:
I was including this category and other state-level halls of fame (sporting and otherwise) in my use of "many", since a category for the
Alabama Sports Hall of Fame is quite similar to a category for the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame. I don't know the exact number, but if I were to guess I'd say around
348:
How much is "enough"? Consider CFD has always had trouble getting people to participate, the CFD was open for a full week and nobody wanted to keep it. How much more of a unanimous discussion was needed? (BTW, since I can't tell if this DRV is for the speedy or the original CFD, for these reasons
508:
at CFD. Both the recent CSD and earlier CFD deletions were perfectly valid. And this probably won't survive another CFD. But here we have a good faith contributor who has put a lot of work into a category and now sees the work deleted because of the outcome of a debate he new nothing about and that
381:
Inviting more review of the original CFD, in which only the nominator and one other person participated, might provide more perspective on those questions. As induction is granted for long-term achievements rather than some specific performance supports the notion that it's not really a minor award
1812:
without prejudice to a subsequent AfD per Ron
Ritzman. Not a valid A7. However, I think it's fair to set Positiveoutlook5's expectations correctly in this. The article is sourced mainly to myspace, facebook, blogs and youtube, and AfD won't tolerate that; they'll insist on independent, reliable
743:
As I said, I must have missed it. I really didn't have any doubt the category was justified and I used the Oregon Sports Hall of Fame category as the basis for where to categorize it. I probably just pasted it in and moved on without noticing the big honking pink box. It came as a surprise to find
231:
Allow me to register my opinion that it is helpful to
Knowledge's users to have the choice of using or ignoring the category rather than to have that choice made for them. "Proliferation" of verifiable information is, in my opinion, the whole point of building an online encyclopedia. The aesthetic
1835:
That is true, but the solid foundation of the article was based on newspapers, news sites, and magazines. I have found a lot of other reliable resources to add, but can't at the moment due to the page being deleted. How exactly do we go about getting the reliable resources, such as the people the
635:
procedure exists—to avoid having to revisit every discussion every time a new user decides it would be a good idea to create the same thing that was previously deleted and the content and facts behind the content are unchanged. Categories for state- and city-level sports halls of fame in the U.S.
553:
I think one might consider that a person willing to have put in hours of work to create and populate a category is effectively making an argument about whether he or she believes that work to be of value to
Knowledge. Perhaps that effort should count for at least as much as the quick jottings of
303:
as a pretty standard usage of G4. The identical category was deleted back in
February through CfD, and the new version had no substantive differences. That said, I've no serious objection to raising this matter at CfD again- the discussion wasn't one of CfD's most through ones, even though the
250:
The problem is not an aesthetic one, but rather a practical one we have learned from years of experience with categories. If categories are not limited to the most important ones, then the swarm of category tags on a page becomes overwhelming, and the resulting signal to noise ratio makes it
669:? Even if it just redirected to WT:CFD? For whatever human illogical reason, many people don't want to ask the admin questions on an admin User_talk page. I would still prefer category creation to involve an extra step (click) confirming that the creator knows what they are doing. --
1237:
All the references (except the link to official page of his film) in this page are from newspapers and other reliable sources. And how many films one should create to be notable for you. There are plenty of famous directors who had directed only one film in their lifetime.
201:; the general idea is that awards categories tend to overproliferate on articles, and so should just be limited to the highest honors in particular fields. I have no judgment on where this particular honor falls. There are two other state sports hall of fame categories:
178:
Several hours of my good faith work was speedily deleted without discussion because the category had been previously deleted with virtually no discussion. The guideline suggested by the nominator seems to contradict a great deal of accepted practice in categorization.
1209:
Those references are published by the owner of article. I can see, those are same self promotion descriptions where it was appear in personal website. Creating a one film how do we can say as notable and impotence for encyclopedia. (wipe 17:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC))
797:
if you have any questions." I note that I am unlikely to ask a "robot", "Clydebot", questions, given that I already have a reluctance to talk on admin talk pages. The original deleter may be from long ago and might not be expected to be immediately responsive.
572:
That view's very understandable. But equally, if we're to have categories, then someone needs to decide how they should be named and organised, and which should be deleted. So there must be a CfD process, and it will never be well-attended because so few users
78:
at CfD. The consensus of the discussion below is that the deletions are valid, but there is no consensus whether relisting is necessary. Given the low participation at the original CfD, however, as the DRV closer I find that relisting may be beneficial. –
1042:
going to be able to stay in
Knowledge. If you have such references, I think you can just rewrite the article--omitting some sentences that sound like advertising because of the adjectives. If you don;t have the references, there's no point in trying.
575:
Personally I advise against ever creating a category. Just write a list. I find the criteria for what's permissible in a list a great deal more intelligible, and if someone decides your list needs to be deleted then at least you can keep it in your
762:
I've often wondered if the big honking pink box needs to be made even bigger and more honking. Because when users want to create something, they seem to turn their honking detectors off—I always hear after the fact that they "must have missed it".
1836:
band recorded with? They did record, and write with notable people, but i'm not sure where to find the resources for it. Most of the facebook links were to personal things i think, so do those just need to be removed if the page is reinstated?--
209:. It's possible that some state halls of fame may be more worthy of categories than others, which would justify having categories for some but not all; or all may be equally important such that either all should have categories or none.
1729:
I am unaware of how to post on this page. The article should have indeed been put up for deletetion initially, instead of speedy deletion. The claim was indeed credibly made. I also don't know how to undelete the page and nominate it for
816:
This may all be productive discussion if we assume that there is indeed no place for such a category in this đź’•. I opened this conversation, however, hoping that our editorial community be given a chance to re-examine that assumption.
1138:
if properly sourced. I'm aware this isn't strictly in accordance with speedy deletion process, but it is pure process wonkery to overturn a deletion of an article that, in its deleted state, hasn't a snowball's chance of passing AFD.
1676:
is irrelevant for speedy deletion. All that is required is that the article made a credible claim to the band's significance or importance. That claim was credibly made here, eg performances and competitions. Whether the band meets
1868:
Ultimately it is the responsibility of the people who want to write the article to do the research. If you want to compile the reliable sources now before the article is restored, you can create a page in your userspace (at
1119:
due to good faith appeal from an editor in good standing over a speedied article not involving offensive material. This should be automatic. List at AfD if there is disagreement over whether it is unacceptable promotion.
666:
649:
390:". I think it could be argued that induction into the Alabama Sports Hall of Fame is a clear indicator of notability. 3/4ths of its inductees already have articles and the others certainly seem to merit new ones. --
941:– Moot. Article already recreated in the mainspace. I also restored the other deleted edits as there is no reason to keep them hidden from view (unless I missed something obvious, then go ahead and correct). – –
476:
463:: I don't think it's correct to characterize a hall of fame as the same as an "award." A hall of fame indicates a lifetime achievement, and hence, more notability, than winning a single award. And not to pull
792:
for me. Perhaps if this text "Knowledge does not have a category with this exact title. To avoid redundancy, please browse the existing categories before creating this page. " additional said "please ask at
785:
645:
710:
If there was a big honking pink box shown at the time, I must have missed it. Since 99% of the work populating a category takes place in the article pages, not the category page. --16:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
641:
1760:
You don't need to worry about how to nominate it; once this discussion is closed after seven days by an administrator, if the consensus is to undelete it was send it to AFD, the administrator will do so.
1780:. The article did at least assert notability for this band. I take no position on whether it needs to be sent to AfD upon restoration; whoever thinks it should be sent to AfD can do that if they want. --
637:
480:
408:
article doesn't give me much confidence in it. It has no neutral third-party references (i.e., ones that aren't motivated to promote the Hall of Fame). The article states that one of the inductees was
1098:
Note: A userspace draft has now been provided and in my view it is acceptable enough for us to wave it onto the mainspace. I have no views on notability: that really should be judged at AfD not here.--
119:
161:
1030:(G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) This article has been deleted without any discussion. And how i've provided with more references to prove the validity of subject in deletion admin's
363:
to an athlete of being inducted into one? And should we be considering a new CFD for the Oregon and Texas categories I noted above, regardless of whether this
Alabama one gets another chance?
484:
718:
115:
70:
1080:. Well outside the scope of "exclusively promotional" and does not fall into any other CSD category. But I agree this article shoud need some work with reliable sources to survive an AfD. --
605:
387:
202:
206:
488:
653:
1870:
1804:
554:
those who lurk at CfD. We've now had at least two people who have labored to create this category and two people who have participated in the discussion to delete it. --
523:
Long experience of what happens at CfD tells me there's no point in overturning or relisting a CfD discussion. DRV has overturned CfD before, and it's never ended well.
1787:
309:
149:
1753:
1718:
1694:
1859:
1830:
1185:
It has more references and i've re-wrote some part to remove the "advertisement-like" parts. Can you please review it and allow me to take that page to public? --
866:
How many times? I only saw one "discussion" with a total of two editorial voices represented, both of whom seem to be right at home in the deletion department. --
197:. No doubt your efforts to create and populate this category were in good faith, as was the effort to depopulate it and delete it. The relevant guideline is at
1880:
1847:
1649:
1638:
1540:– Speedy deletion overturned. No clear consensus to send to AFD; I won't list at AFD myself, but if someone feels AFD is necessary, they are free to list it. – –
1268:
857:
807:
678:
1107:
889:
875:
853:
The problem with asking for a re-evaluation as I see it is that the assumption has been re-examined a number of times at CFD, and always with the same result.
767:
660:
313:
305:
170:
701:
518:
1770:
835:
The challenging of the poorly explained category conventions is something to be encouraged. However, I do not see a serious challenge being made here. --
734:
593:
563:
543:
1168:
844:
826:
295:
1741:
1487:
357:
343:
325:
1504:
1452:
with so much time that has passed, article should be rewritten if someone wishes. Then, if someone feels it should be deleted, it could be sent to AfD.
753:
617:
500:
441:
426:
399:
376:
268:
241:
222:
1837:
1461:
1194:
1089:
1070:
1129:
1247:
1148:
255:
rather than editing it to the most defining facts? But that doesn't seem very helpful. Filtering and focusing is an important part of editing.
1731:
1575:
472:
1661:
1381:
1006:
48:
34:
1571:
1544:
1536:
1308:
945:
383:
188:
88:
1443:
652:, etc. —it's nothing personal against Alabama, obviously. (Just wait until we can review the deletion of the no-doubt-impending
1855:
1657:
43:
1053:
1021:
1181:
Ok i agree.. There were only few references mentioned at the page at the time.. But now i've created an "Special My Page"
334:
It's not that circumstances have changed, it's that there wasn't enough discussion about the circumstances at the time. --
1159:
Regardless of the eventual fate of the article, it still would be helpful for a close here that says "it wasn't spam". --
1749:
1182:
1369:
142:
39:
1826:
1483:
1407:
1226:
589:
539:
1800:
1264:
134:
156:
126:
21:
1061:. Userfy, Incubate, or restore and send to AFD. I'm looking at the cached version and IMHO it's not spam. --
1605:
1430:. Has also held championships in various companies. I've re-written an article for him that can be seen at
1390:
632:
405:
1495:
and move draft to mainspace. The userspace article clearly overcomes the debate on the old article. --
1851:
1796:
1709:
but my reading of the cached version shows a weak assertion of IoS. Let the community make the call. --
1653:
1260:
464:
1893:
1555:
1515:
1319:
1279:
1031:
976:
956:
916:
99:
17:
1877:
1784:
999:
1259:. Not unsalvageably promotional, tone issues easily resolvable through routine editing processes.
1620:
991:
283:
1745:
1013:
604:: Perhaps instead of relisting this specific category, why not relist it more generically, eg,
983:
1714:
1690:
1415:
1164:
1103:
1085:
1066:
697:
514:
1843:
1822:
1737:
1645:
1479:
1222:
1214:
972:
937:
585:
535:
321:. I don't see how circumstances have changed since the original CFD to make it invalid. --
1362:
8:
1874:
1781:
1685:
if anyone is inclined to nominate it, but this wasn't a candidate for speedy deletion. --
1500:
1431:
1125:
886:
854:
840:
803:
764:
674:
657:
291:
57:
1354:
1541:
1457:
1305:
1243:
1190:
942:
871:
822:
749:
559:
437:
395:
339:
237:
184:
84:
1376:
665:
Would it be nice if these G4 category deletions included a link in the log comment to
1598:
1403:
1346:
729:
613:
496:
421:
371:
263:
217:
198:
1766:
1710:
1686:
1590:
1439:
1339:
1160:
1144:
1099:
1081:
1062:
776:
I think that's right. When you think you know what it is that you want to do, you
693:
510:
1814:
1612:
1471:
1427:
1419:
1218:
577:
527:
1582:
1706:
1678:
1673:
1630:
1496:
1399:
1121:
836:
799:
789:
670:
287:
252:
1725:
1701:
1682:
1466:
I agree. A good faith user wants to create an article, and this is a wiki.
1453:
1411:
1239:
1186:
1049:
1034:. But the deletion admin refused to restored and instructed to list it here.
867:
818:
794:
781:
745:
744:
that consensus hasn't developed around the value of this type of category. --
555:
433:
391:
354:
335:
322:
233:
232:
judgments of those who disdain "over proliferation" are counterproductive. --
180:
80:
1423:
1402:, who is currently inactive. Today, I believe he is notable enough to pass
723:
609:
492:
415:
365:
257:
211:
1762:
1435:
1335:
1300:
1140:
410:
1406:
as he has made appearances for notable independent promotions such as
1044:
777:
692:
putting in "hours of hard work" just to watch it all go *POOF*? --
1813:
sources and quite likely, delete if no such sources are found.—
286:
doesn't trump having a discussion, and
Dystopos wants one. --
1398:
Article deleted in January 2007 and has since been salted by
784:). I don't think there is any more to do with the advice at
471:
of categories for other halls of fame inductees, such as
487:; in fact, I just found a whole bunch more here:
1633:. They meet at least three of the requirements.
1641:" (Atlanta) in 2003 for over a half an hour.
477:Category:Oklahoma Music Hall of Fame inductees
432:some articles have too many category links. --
473:Category:Country Music Hall of Fame inductees
786:Editing Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame
1554:The following is an archived debate of the
1318:The following is an archived debate of the
955:The following is an archived debate of the
98:The following is an archived debate of the
788:. The edit box is already well below the
667:WP:What? My hard work has just been G4'ed!
481:Category:Motorcycle Hall of Fame inductees
1795:as inappropriate speedy, as noted above.
384:Category:Albanian beauty pageant winners
717:Click on the redlink for the category:
14:
1724:Unaware of how to nominate article on
1470:without prejudice to subsequent AfD.—
485:Category:Science Fiction Hall of Fame
719:Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame
116:Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame
71:Category:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame
1896:of the page listed in the heading.
1518:of the page listed in the heading.
1282:of the page listed in the heading.
919:of the page listed in the heading.
606:Category:Foo hall of fame inductees
388:Category:Apple Design Award winners
203:Category:Oregon Sports Hall of Fame
27:
207:Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame
28:
1914:
1629:The band Azmyth is indeed notable
489:Category:Halls of fame inductees
304:result is pretty much standard.
1892:The above is an archive of the
1514:The above is an archive of the
1278:The above is an archive of the
915:The above is an archive of the
284:Knowledge:OCAT#Award_recipients
13:
1:
282:at CfD for more discussion.
1871:User:Positiveoutlook5/Azmyth
631:; this is precisely why the
7:
1705:. Most likely doesn't meet
656:article—that will be fun.)
654:Alabama–Greenland relations
406:Alabama Sports Hall of Fame
10:
1919:
1422:and currently wrestles on
636:have been deleted often:
404:The current state of the
353:my close of the CFD). --
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1899:Please do not modify it.
1881:23:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1860:22:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1831:20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1805:17:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1788:16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1771:15:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1754:14:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1719:12:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1695:07:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1662:06:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1561:Please do not modify it.
1545:03:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
1521:Please do not modify it.
1505:04:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1488:20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1462:14:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1444:02:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1325:Please do not modify it.
1309:03:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
1285:Please do not modify it.
1269:23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1248:17:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1195:10:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1169:02:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
1149:08:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1130:04:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1108:03:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
1090:02:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1071:02:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1054:16:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1039:permit recreation if....
962:Please do not modify it.
946:03:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
922:Please do not modify it.
890:03:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
876:03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
858:03:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
845:02:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
827:01:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
808:01:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
768:00:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
754:17:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
735:17:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
702:13:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
679:05:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
661:05:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
618:16:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
594:15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
564:14:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
544:13:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
519:03:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
501:17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
442:03:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
427:23:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
400:18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
377:15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
358:02:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
344:23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
326:19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
314:07:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
296:04:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
269:16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
242:03:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
223:21:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
189:16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
105:Please do not modify it.
89:16:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
40:Deletion review archives
629:Endorse speedy deletion
1558:of the article above.
1322:of the article above.
959:of the article above.
885:ten or a dozen times.
102:of the article above.
1797:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
1700:Undelete and send to
1639:The Regular Guys Show
1416:Combat Zone Wrestling
1261:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
1681:can be discussed at
1670:Overturn and restore
1078:Overturn and restore
973:Chinthana Dharmadasa
938:Chinthana Dharmadasa
253:introductory section
1432:User:TheFBH/sandbox
465:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
319:Endorse the speedy
301:Endorse the speedy
1906:
1905:
1863:
1846:comment added by
1829:
1757:
1740:comment added by
1665:
1648:comment added by
1528:
1527:
1486:
1292:
1291:
1231:
1217:comment added by
1136:permit recreation
929:
928:
592:
542:
1910:
1901:
1862:
1848:Positiveoutlook5
1840:
1838:Positiveoutlook5
1821:
1819:
1756:
1734:
1664:
1650:Positiveoutlook5
1642:
1625:
1623:
1615:
1601:
1593:
1585:
1563:
1530:
1529:
1523:
1478:
1476:
1393:
1388:
1379:
1365:
1357:
1349:
1327:
1294:
1293:
1287:
1230:
1211:
1026:
1024:
1016:
1002:
994:
986:
964:
931:
930:
924:
584:
582:
534:
532:
173:
168:
159:
145:
137:
129:
107:
64:
63:
53:
33:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1897:
1894:deletion review
1841:
1815:
1810:Overturn speedy
1735:
1643:
1619:
1617:
1611:
1610:
1604:
1597:
1596:
1589:
1588:
1581:
1580:
1559:
1556:deletion review
1519:
1516:deletion review
1472:
1428:Dragon Gate USA
1420:Full Impact Pro
1389:
1387:
1384:
1375:
1374:
1368:
1361:
1360:
1353:
1352:
1345:
1344:
1323:
1320:deletion review
1304:– Unsalted. – –
1283:
1280:deletion review
1212:
1020:
1018:
1012:
1011:
1005:
998:
997:
990:
989:
982:
981:
960:
957:deletion review
920:
917:deletion review
887:Good Ol’factory
855:Good Ol’factory
765:Good Ol’factory
658:Good Ol’factory
578:
528:
169:
167:
164:
155:
154:
148:
141:
140:
133:
132:
125:
124:
103:
100:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1916:
1904:
1903:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1875:Metropolitan90
1865:
1864:
1807:
1790:
1782:Metropolitan90
1775:
1774:
1773:
1721:
1697:
1627:
1626:
1608:
1602:
1594:
1586:
1578:
1566:
1565:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1526:
1525:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1490:
1464:
1396:
1395:
1385:
1372:
1366:
1358:
1350:
1342:
1330:
1329:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1290:
1289:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1207:
1206:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1152:
1151:
1132:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1093:
1092:
1074:
1073:
1056:
1028:
1027:
1009:
1003:
995:
987:
979:
967:
966:
951:
950:
949:
948:
927:
926:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
879:
878:
861:
860:
850:
849:
848:
847:
830:
829:
811:
810:
771:
770:
757:
756:
738:
737:
712:
711:
705:
704:
683:
682:
681:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
598:
597:
567:
566:
548:
547:
521:
503:
467:, but we have
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
382:(unlike, say "
329:
328:
316:
306:Bradjamesbrown
298:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
245:
244:
226:
225:
176:
175:
165:
152:
146:
138:
130:
122:
110:
109:
94:
93:
92:
91:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1915:
1902:
1900:
1895:
1890:
1889:
1882:
1879:
1876:
1872:
1867:
1866:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1839:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1818:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1791:
1789:
1786:
1783:
1779:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1759:
1758:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1733:
1728:
1727:
1722:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1703:
1698:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1640:
1634:
1632:
1622:
1614:
1607:
1600:
1592:
1584:
1577:
1573:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1564:
1562:
1557:
1552:
1551:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1524:
1522:
1517:
1512:
1511:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1491:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1475:
1469:
1465:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:Ring of Honor
1409:
1405:
1401:
1392:
1383:
1378:
1371:
1364:
1356:
1348:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1321:
1316:
1315:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1288:
1286:
1281:
1276:
1275:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1205:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1134:Same as DGG,
1133:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1033:
1023:
1015:
1008:
1001:
993:
985:
978:
974:
971:
970:
969:
968:
965:
963:
958:
953:
952:
947:
944:
940:
939:
935:
934:
933:
932:
925:
923:
918:
913:
912:
891:
888:
883:
882:
881:
880:
877:
873:
869:
865:
864:
863:
862:
859:
856:
852:
851:
846:
842:
838:
834:
833:
832:
831:
828:
824:
820:
815:
814:
813:
812:
809:
805:
801:
796:
791:
787:
783:
782:tunnel vision
779:
775:
774:
773:
772:
769:
766:
761:
760:
759:
758:
755:
751:
747:
742:
741:
740:
739:
736:
732:
731:
726:
725:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
662:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
634:
630:
627:
626:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
600:
599:
596:
595:
591:
587:
583:
581:
571:
570:
569:
568:
565:
561:
557:
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
545:
541:
537:
533:
531:
522:
520:
516:
512:
507:
504:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
458:
443:
439:
435:
430:
429:
428:
424:
423:
418:
417:
412:
407:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
380:
379:
378:
374:
373:
368:
367:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
327:
324:
320:
317:
315:
311:
307:
302:
299:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
278:
277:
270:
266:
265:
260:
259:
254:
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
239:
235:
230:
229:
228:
227:
224:
220:
219:
214:
213:
208:
204:
200:
199:WP:OCAT#AWARD
196:
193:
192:
191:
190:
186:
182:
172:
163:
158:
151:
144:
136:
128:
121:
117:
114:
113:
112:
111:
108:
106:
101:
96:
95:
90:
86:
82:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1898:
1891:
1816:
1809:
1792:
1777:
1742:Nascarman456
1732:Nascarman456
1723:
1699:
1669:
1635:
1628:
1560:
1553:
1535:
1520:
1513:
1492:
1473:
1467:
1449:
1424:pay-per-view
1397:
1324:
1317:
1299:
1284:
1277:
1256:
1208:
1203:
1135:
1116:
1077:
1059:Overturn G11
1058:
1043:
1038:
1029:
961:
954:
936:
921:
914:
728:
722:
689:
685:
628:
601:
579:
574:
529:
524:
505:
468:
460:
420:
414:
370:
364:
350:
318:
300:
279:
262:
256:
216:
210:
194:
177:
104:
97:
75:
69:
58:
1842:—Preceding
1736:—Preceding
1711:Ron Ritzman
1687:Mkativerata
1672:. Actually
1644:—Preceding
1336:Hallowicked
1301:Hallowicked
1213:—Preceding
1161:Ron Ritzman
1100:Mkativerata
1082:Mkativerata
1063:Ron Ritzman
790:scroll line
694:Ron Ritzman
576:userspace.—
511:Mkativerata
411:Jesse Owens
59:23 May 2010
49:2010 May 24
35:2010 May 22
1817:S Marshall
1474:S Marshall
1404:WP:ATHLETE
1219:Wipeouting
580:S Marshall
530:S Marshall
1497:SmokeyJoe
1400:Akradecki
1122:SmokeyJoe
1032:Talk Page
837:SmokeyJoe
800:SmokeyJoe
671:SmokeyJoe
288:SmokeyJoe
1856:contribs
1844:unsigned
1793:Overturn
1778:Undelete
1750:contribs
1738:unsigned
1730:review--
1658:contribs
1646:unsigned
1542:MuZemike
1454:Dew Kane
1306:MuZemike
1257:Overturn
1240:Nidahasa
1227:contribs
1215:unsigned
1187:Nidahasa
1117:Undelete
943:MuZemike
868:Dystopos
819:Dystopos
746:Dystopos
556:Dystopos
434:Dystopos
392:Dystopos
355:Kbdank71
336:Dystopos
323:Kbdank71
234:Dystopos
181:Dystopos
81:Tim Song
44:2010 May
20: |
1707:WP:BAND
1679:WP:BAND
1674:WP:BAND
1631:WP:BAND
1621:restore
1591:history
1408:Chikara
1391:restore
1355:history
1022:restore
992:history
780:(think
724:postdlf
686:Comment
650:Buffalo
610:Esprqii
602:Comment
493:Esprqii
416:postdlf
366:postdlf
351:endorse
258:postdlf
212:postdlf
195:Comment
171:restore
135:history
1878:(talk)
1785:(talk)
1763:Stifle
1572:Azmyth
1537:Azmyth
1493:Unsalt
1468:Unsalt
1450:Unsalt
1436:TheFBH
1204:delete
1141:Stifle
795:WP:CFD
690:before
642:Philly
506:Relist
461:Relist
386:" or "
280:Relist
76:Relist
1613:watch
1606:links
1377:watch
1370:links
1183:here.
1050:talk
1014:watch
1007:links
778:focus
573:care.
349:I'll
157:watch
150:links
52:: -->
16:<
1852:talk
1801:talk
1767:talk
1746:talk
1715:talk
1691:talk
1654:talk
1599:logs
1583:edit
1576:talk
1501:talk
1458:talk
1440:talk
1426:for
1418:and
1363:logs
1347:edit
1340:talk
1265:talk
1244:talk
1223:talk
1191:talk
1165:talk
1145:talk
1126:talk
1104:talk
1086:talk
1067:talk
1000:logs
984:edit
977:talk
872:talk
841:talk
823:talk
804:talk
750:talk
730:talk
698:talk
675:talk
614:talk
560:talk
515:talk
497:talk
469:lots
438:talk
422:talk
396:talk
372:talk
340:talk
310:talk
292:talk
264:talk
238:talk
218:talk
205:and
185:talk
143:logs
127:edit
120:talk
85:talk
32:<
1726:AFD
1702:AFD
1683:AFD
1382:XfD
1380:) (
1045:DGG
162:XfD
160:) (
22:Log
1858:)
1854:•
1803:)
1769:)
1752:)
1748:•
1717:)
1693:)
1660:)
1656:•
1503:)
1460:)
1442:)
1414:,
1410:,
1267:)
1246:)
1238:--
1229:)
1225:•
1193:)
1167:)
1147:)
1128:)
1120:--
1106:)
1088:)
1069:)
1052:)
874:)
843:)
825:)
817:--
806:)
798:--
752:)
733:)
700:)
677:)
648:,
646:NC
644:,
640:,
638:VA
633:G4
616:)
562:)
517:)
499:)
483:,
479:,
475:,
440:)
425:)
398:)
375:)
342:)
312:)
294:)
267:)
240:)
221:)
187:)
87:)
74:–
42::
1850:(
1827:C
1825:/
1823:T
1799:(
1765:(
1744:(
1713:(
1689:(
1652:(
1624:)
1618:(
1616:)
1609:|
1603:|
1595:|
1587:|
1579:|
1574:(
1499:(
1484:C
1482:/
1480:T
1456:(
1438:(
1434:.
1394:)
1386:|
1373:|
1367:|
1359:|
1351:|
1343:|
1338:(
1263:(
1242:(
1221:(
1189:(
1163:(
1143:(
1124:(
1102:(
1084:(
1065:(
1048:(
1025:)
1019:(
1017:)
1010:|
1004:|
996:|
988:|
980:|
975:(
870:(
839:(
821:(
802:(
748:(
727:(
696:(
673:(
612:(
590:C
588:/
586:T
558:(
540:C
538:/
536:T
513:(
495:(
436:(
419:(
394:(
369:(
338:(
308:(
290:(
261:(
236:(
215:(
183:(
174:)
166:|
153:|
147:|
139:|
131:|
123:|
118:(
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.