Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 76

7655:

reason it's not suitable for Knowledge is that it massively fails WP:N, but WP:N has nothing to do with encyclopaedic-ness. Seriously, if you think it would need a massive re-write to be encyclopaedic, do a massive re-write to demonstrate how you think the same article would look. You'll find you wind up with pretty much the same prose (I'd probably split it into two sentences, but that's a very minor edit). You've really started with the conclusion that this is spam (it's possible that's the intent, I have no idea), and you're now trying to fit a round peg into a tesseract-shaped hole, which is why you're getting such a nonsensical answer. The article isn't referenced, which is bad from a Knowledge perspective, but has nothing to do with whether it's written in an encyclopaedic fashion - many encyclopaedias don't include references at all. Scholarly encyclopaedias, yes. Children's encyclopaedias from the supermarket, not so much. And, of course, I can source all the information in the article to Youtube, which is a reliable source for the information in the article - it doesn't go to notability, but it's quite easy to confirm that it's true. If I were writing a journal article about this kid for some reason, and I said he has 23 subscribers, a number I just got from his youtube page, any academic journal would accept that just fine. Of course, sourcing it to Youtube would be worthless for WP:N purposes, but WP:N is the only problem here (and, as noted, A7 if it hit the article space).

8105:. We can have, and have had, promotional articles about clearly notable subjects, that were deleted as promotional, but could have been recreated if NPOV were followed. We have had non-promotional articles about clearly non-notable subjects. I recall at the height of the debates on school notability someoen wrote an article about the elementary school (K-3) down the street from where I then lived. It was reasonably written, and not particularly promotional, but the school ws not notable. I AfD'd it and it was kept because some editors at that time wanted to keep all articles about all schools. Later it was quietly redirected to the article about the school district because it wasn't separately notable. But it was never promotional, largely because it complied with NPOV. If we allow neutral articles to be deleted as spam (G11) because they might serve to direct attention and web traffic to the subject, what is to prevent the deletion of clearly notable topics. And more often, what is to prevent the deletion of drafts about topics which may prove to be notable, but which have not yet been developed? Remember that speedy deletions do not require a 2985:, thanks for the reply. It's helpful. I think you disagree with the need but it has been presented directly to you before and let me try again: articles that people are actively monitoring should not be deleted without warning. Deletion of drafts no one cares about should be uncontroversial. If someone cares enough to remove a notice they shouldn't have to go fill out REFUND paperwork. I had this happen to me recently. I knew I was about to RfA so I just waited and made it my first action with the toolkit but that door is not open to everyone. It also meant I moved another draft I've been slowly chipping away with from Draft space, where I'd have loved help, to my user space, where others might not feel comfortable jumping in.My criteria for DRAFTPROD would be G13 criteria except that it runs for 7 days - like PROD and BLPPROD. Removal of the DRAFTPROD notice is enough to reset the six month clock, but unlike PROD, a draft may be tagged an unlimited number of times with DRAFTPROD. So it's G13 but done slower. Best, 7860:, I would like to see your ideas for a NEWCSD for neutrally-written new drafts on obviously non-notable subjects for which there is a clear promotional angle. Yes, RHaworth was the usual deleting admin for these worthless pages, but there were other admins too. I think they are fine to be left to G13, but draftspace reviewers seem irked to be asked to let such worthless NOTWEBHOST violating material sit for so long (although I don't know why they review unsubmitted drafts). I am fine with them being blanked on sight, except others counter that this means the material will never be deleted, not by G13, although I counter again that spammers blanked edit histories being available to non-admins is a good thing. What bothers me is seeing brief NOTWEBHOST dumps in draftspace being nominated at MfD for a week+ of community review. A kid posting about their YouTube channel is a very typical example. I honestly though this was in scope for G11. -- 4845:

with a few exceptions. I will delete copyvios and attack pages promptly, without waiting for another admin. I will delete talk pages as part of the deletion of other pages tagged by someone else, without waiting for a separate tag. I will do some housekeeping (G6) deletions without a tag, where i am convinced that they are truly uncontroversial, such as old redirects holding up a move, with no useful history. Otherwise I will tag for CSD like any other editor, and only delete pages tagged by someone else, after reviewing the page to be sure that the criterion applies. I wish that all admins followed similar practices, but some do not. Some routinely delete any page that they think fits one of the CSD, and as long as their judgements seem largely correct, there is no policy to require them to act differently. However, if I noticed an article deleted with the reason of "does not assert notability" I would review it, and might well bring it up at

8007:

opportunity to get a draft right, to find and include needed sources and stamens based on those sources. It is possible, albeit unlikely, that there are sources out there which cover Frazer in such a way that notability would be established. Thus at an MfD, I would incline to a "keep" outcome. In my experience, such MfDs can go either way, and ther eis no clear consensus which can be relied on in advance. Thus such pages are notr proper speedy deletion candidates. In more general terms, a page that describes the subjset in accord with NPOV would be a valid article if notability is also established. If this were passed, most pages on notable companies ought to be deleted under G11, as they do serve to attract people to their web sites and products, and thus serve a promotional function as well as an informational function. This change would be a very bad idea indeed.

8235:(empty category)" or "de-populate then G4+C1" is a good way to handle it unless there is a clear intent for the category name to be used for something completely unrelated to the merger discussion, for example, if the CSD said "merge Category:Apples in Florida and Category:Oranges in Florida to Category:Fruits in Florida" but someone created a new category "Category:Apples in Florida" for all topics related to the notable band "Apples in Florida" (stylized with a lowercase "i" in "in"), that would be fine. However, be careful if the category is populated - if the previous CFD gave guidance on how to move files to other categories, do that before deleting the category. If it did not - that is, if the particular pages in the category seem unrelated to the CSD, it may be a case of "same name, but really a different category" like in the fictional music example above. 7719:

simply not a reason for deletion. An FA on a notable but obscure topic can make the subject better known, certainly it will likely appear as one of the top hits on Google and give you more information about the subject than anywhere else on the internet, but it's not a reason for deletion. I absolutely reject the idea that G11 has anything to do with whether there are reliable sources or whether the subject is notable. The two are completely distinct concepts. G11 is for pages which are blatantly and purely written to promote the subject, nothing else. There's a reason why deletions of non-notable articles are done through AfD and PROD. In mainspace this draft would qualify for A7. In draft space it could be sent to MfD but frankly I think that would be a waste of everyone's time and it should just be left for the G13 clock.

4872:(sample for nonadmins: "We pride ourselves in great work ethic, integrity, and end-results."); the stereotypical article about a middle-school "singer-songwriter" who just released his first single on Youtube, that A7 was originally aimed at and that we still see in mainspace occasionally; or a full-page cut-and-paste from a major website like CNN or the BBC where there's zero chance of it ultimately being a reverse infringement of Knowledge or some other freely-licensed source. In between are criteria like G13, which are unambiguous - either the page has been edited in the last six months or it hasn't - but still benefit from a second pair of eyes, on the off chance a page was improperly declined at AFC or moved out of the main namespace, or can otherwise be turned into a viable article. — 2697:'s line of thought is one that was thrashed out in the discussions that created G13. It's good as a motherhood statement, but hopeless when it comes to practical implementation. The problem is: "who decides the draft has no hope"? Was that decision objective? For all the agreed objective reasons of "no hope", a CSD criterion exists. For the remainder, it is possible that the author may come back with additional information to justify hope for their initially scanty draft. It is an unjustified workload to do a "no hope no notability" test on every hopeless looking draft. The onus should be on the author, on the topic proponents, and from this comes the imperative that there be some time limit. 6 months is the agreed limit. For sure, 1 week is too short, and : --> 7295:- even if that sentence were removed, that draft still wouldn't be eligible for G11 deletion, because it doesn't require any kind of a rewrite to serve as an encyclopaedia article rather than advertisement. The question I start with when considering G11s is "if I wrote this article, would I re-use any of this text?" - if the answer is "no", then it needs a fundamental rewrite. If, like here, the answer is "yes, all of it", then it doesn't require any kind of re-write. Which is this case. It's an encyclopaedia article, it just doesn't get over (or near) the inclusion criterion. In article space, A7 would apply. In draft space, G13 will get it. If it's a persistent problem, you could consider MfD or SALTing, but I suspect such cases are quite exceptional. 7216:, and it might be that such an article would need to be deleted, but it seems to me that a decision of that kind needs to be made by consensus at an AfD, not by speedy deletion. And remember that G11 applies not only to mainspace, but to draft space and userspace, where there should be time an opportunity to correct drafts which can become valid articles, not delete them if they are fixable. (obviously this doesn't apply to pure copyvios, attack pages, hoaxes, or the like.) Do please consider that the speedy criteria will be applied widely, and should describe pages which there is wide consensus can and should be deleted without discussion. Such an argument at an AfD would be a very different matter, I think. 7540:"if I wrote this article, would I re-use any of this text?" " the answer is "yes, all of it". This is what I label "dishonest scholarship". You would take prose source from Facebook, and give it a false reference? When you write a scholarly essay, do you first write done what you think, and then second add reference that appear to support what you just wrote? That may pass some examiners, but it should be failed. Referenced material must be based on the reference that it is referenced to. You imply that you think this could be an article, which is to imply that there is a reliable source for it. What is that reliable source? If you were to add the real source, it becomes more obviously G11-eligible. 4445:, so if an otherwise G5 eligible page has previously deleted edits restored, BANREVERT would have us revert to last restored edit. In that state, the reason for the previous deletion (or other removal) will often sill apply. If the previous deletion was an AfD, it becomes a very clear cut G4 deletion, most of the speedy deletion criteria would continue to apply, etc. PROD is the main exception here, where the restore invalidates the previous deletion. While such a page would likely not be eligible for deletion per G5 only, deletion will often be the correct course of action. That being said, in this particular case, moving the page to the draftspace is probably the best option. 7700:

a hundred billion dollars a day). I can't see any argument for keeping at MfD (unless any sources that would go towards notability could be found, which seems unlikely), but I could imagine some principled pushback along the lines of the expectation set by G13 here is that people should get 6 months to try to work a draft up to a reasonable standard. If I saw it there, I doubt I would care enough to say anything either way. If someone kept making small edits to delay G13-ing of a totally hopeless article, I think MfD would be appropriate. I don't think MfD would want to be inundated with every draft that's going to be G13'd without any hope of ever being accepted.

5873:, discouraging banned editors to game the system. G11 allows deletion when there is nothing to save and nothing to fix. A10 and A2 both require the subject to be present somewhere else already. The whole point of Knowledge is to create an encyclopedia filled with information about notable subjects, so deleting a notable subject's article under A7 runs counter to this goal. Even if technically A7 does not require a BEFORE. It makes no sense that for AFD you have to do a BEFORE but for a criterion that is supposed to be stricter you don't, so I think it's safe to say that the community thinks it's implied when the policy says 5238:

topic-banned (but not blocked) editor could create an article in violation of such a topic-ban, but I can't recall the last time I notice an instance of that. G5s are pretty much always actually created by sock-puppet accounts after the master or original account is blocked, and the consensus to delete in such cases is clear. I don't really like G5, but it is policy. It is, IMO good practice to link to the SPI, or to the blocked account that the creating account is a sock of, or to a block log that in turn so links. That helps make things clearer for others. But no policy requires such a link when tagging for G5.

8058:, if I am wrong again, but "G11 has nothing to do with how many sources are cited" sort of crosses with "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia article", because if there are suitable sources, the content sourced to those suitable sources must be presumed to be re-writable. The presence of suitable sources means judgement is required, and so speedy deletion should not be used. I have routinely g11-tagged unsourceable promotion (even if neutral) and seen it promptly deleted, and never tagged a suitable sourced page because wording NPOV issues are fixed by editing. -- 2799:

just reads "Joe is a funny man" clearly has no potential, whereas a draft that has multiple references to in-depth reliable sources clearly does (and is probably close to mainspace already)—but what is much less clear are drafts in the middle that might have a source or two, aren't promotional enough to be G11, but don't have enough content or structure for mainspace. What we used to see is these drafts sort of languish in the draft space indefinitely because no one is interested in working on them, and nobody wants to MfD (or PROD) them because they

7811:

problem is such obvious nonsense, because that could be a very legitimate concern on other drafts). In most cases, extending regular PROD to Draft space would probably also work fine (not sure how much support there'd be, but speedying articles that are probably hopeless but not a problem doesn't give newbies any chance even in Draft space. PROD-style ain't so bad for that.). I don't know who's telling you to be more liberal with G11, but if they're too liberal for DGG's taste, any such deletion would definitely be reversed at DRV.

6241:

good faith without sources. A significant accomplishment is one that, in some non-trivial fraction of cases, will lead to the sort of coverage that confers notability. For example "John is the CEO of Company X, that had $ 10 million in sales in 2018" That deos not prove that John is notable. A fair number of such CEOs are not. But a significant number are notable. That fact is enough that speedy deletion is not appropriate, we need an AfD to look at the specific case in detail and see if John is notable or not, which means that a

5848:

content when it can be fixed or improved. But the idea that ARTN forbids deleting content outright "no matter how bad the article is" is simply wrong. G11, G12, A1, A10, G5, A2, and yes, even A7 in the right circumstances, are all among the criteria that preempt ARTN. If someone wants or can rewrite such articles, then they are perfectly able to do so. That does not mean they are compelled to do so, and while a quick good search for A7 nominations is probably a good idea, there is no burden of BEFORE in these circumstances.

2961:. An article can be PRODded for any reason. A reason is not required, or at least you are not asked to substantiate the reason. The reason is supposed to be obvious, but not defined. Accordingly, anyone may dePROD, for any reason, and they are not required to substantiate their reason. Completely subjective, not objective. If there is any disagreement, it goes to AfD. A critical premise for PROD to work is watchlisting. This fails for Drafts, no one watches drafts. DraftProd therefore devolves to a pseudo CSD. 8075:, If content is sourced, but is totally promotional in tone and manner, cherry picking the facts, it will need a fundamental re-write (as G11 says) even if the same sources are used. Source can be reliable but biased. I have certainly seen articles and drafts about small-moderate companies that may have been notable, but were written as total promotion, even though they cited at least some valid sources. At least in some such cases, I would delete such as G11, and have done so in the past. 31: 5497:, who is clearly notable (A1/A10 aside for the sake of the hypothetical scenario, just as a thought experiment). I'm not entirely settled on how to better clarify the difference, but again, like AfC, A7 is often just different from simple notability, as it concerns a proxy measure of a lower standard of existential notability, as indicated by the state of the article, rather than simply the existential state of the subject, apart from their representation on Knowledge. 2397:. Most drafts taken to MfD that survive survive because taking the page to MfD was the wrong process, and the right process is to tag and ignore the draft until G13 applies. The G13 time period (6 months) is sufficient time for an author or interested party to engage. I usually try to remember to write "Keep" ... leave for CSD#G13", but it always applies. A page that should not be subject to G13 should be taken to userspace or a WikiProject. It's regrettable that 7196:, I'm not denying that such an article could be created in good faith. In my opinion, the problem is that if your only source of information is PR, no amount of good intentions is going to make the article neutral. The editor can remove all of the promotional adjectives, but at the end of the day all of the information in the article is information that the company wanted to tell the public about itself, and such an article has no business being in mainspace. 3072:, now I'm confused again. An IP makes no edits to a draft for six months. Currently it can be deleted at anytime instantly. I suggest it should be deleted after having a notice for a week. How is that not more reasonable for an occasional editor? And that's not even the use case I care about. I care about active Wikipedians who are trying to use draft space. They're the ones I honestly think will decline DRAFTPRODs not an IP or non-confirmed editors. Best, 6638:, but to summarise, talking about subjective terms like "notability" and "significance" leads to confusion and disagreement, and a better way of dealing with it is "could anybody in the world possibly turn this into a non-stub decent article?" If it's blatantly obvious nobody could, it's an A7; if you're not sure, it's an AfD; if you can't be bothered to improve it and think nobody else can either, PROD. This procedure would work for DESiegel's example of 8038:

to the subject, or traffic to its website and therefore is subject to G11 deletion, the presence of independent sources is no bar to such a deletion. Any projected attempt to apply such a revised criterion to all the cases that it says it applies to makes it obvious that it would be unwise and improper, as i see it. Unless the proposal is to revise G11 further so that sources give an exemption? but that was not included in the proposal as written.

8423: 7773:

articles...) and largely stay out of it. What is the current state of affairs? If these are commonly deleted at MfD, maybe a speedy criteria to cover them is appropriate. I don't think G11 would be the right one. Maybe some variation of A7? I don't know that I'd support that, but proposing a draft (and maybe userspace?) criteria for articles like this based on an even higher bar than A7 perhaps might well gain consensus.

5527:). I have also seen editors at RfAs criticize a candidate because they had "blue links" in their CSD log (i.e. and thus a sign of an incorrect A7), however, it is not uncommon to see a valid A7, return as a non-valid A7/or proper article. It would be worth clarifying this point (and that valid A7s can return as non-valid A7s once any kind of potential claim of notability (either in the text or the refs), has been added). 7909:"Neutrally-written new drafts ... for which there is a clear promotional angle" is an oxymoron. If it is neutrally written then it is not promotional, if it is promotional then it is not neutrally written (it is also possible to be non-neutral and not promotional). The examples I quote are not promotional at all, which is why being promotional or otherwise will have to be irrelevant to a CSD criterion to handle them. 3479:, it's a fairly straightforward read to discern consensus but despite my not having cast a formal bold vote (nor planning to) I would say I'm too involved to close - and I did not start and voting in the RfC. I would suggest that given your intent to "mobilize this consensus" that you are better off waiting for someone who is not so clearly involved to do the close. Take those thoughts for what you will. Best, 7177:

content. This proposal would make such articles speedy deletable, when all that is needed is to replace the PR sources with independent sources. I am not sure if I have seen an article or draft entirely so source, but I have certainly seen press releases and company web sites used when independent sources for the same facts were available, because a new editor did not know to search for independent sources.

6511:'s concerns. I am not sure many contemporany editors (and admins), make the distinction between "importance or significance" and "notability" (and have knowledge of the original !vote)? Part of me wonders if this is a flaw in the original proposal to introduce non-defined terms (in a WP sense), as lower hurdles of WP-defined term, "notability"? For example, there are BLP subjects that pass at AfD via 4987:. The reason for a deletion may no longer be valid, and in those cases, we want to allow the subject to be covered without the need for any heavy process. But, in those cases, whatever has changed in the world should be reflected in changes in the article. Simply plopping down a saved copy of the old text doesn't fix anything. Not to mention the attribution issues mentioned above. -- 3830:. Based on my record of nominating personal and unencyclopedic images, this new criterion is uncontestable because all the files were deleted, frequent because there are many personal and unencyclopedic images that were deleted and nonredundant because these files wouldn't meet another already-existing deletion criterion. However, this criterion should only apply to unused personal images. 6097:

because it's a terrible article. If the article made any attempt to summarise why people should care about David Attenborough (e.g. "David Attenborough is an acclaimed natural history broadcaster") then it wouldn't qualify for A7. "a lower standard than notablilty" just means that evidence of notability is automatically evidence of significance, it doesn't turn A7 into a notability test.

1712:

think that we have an objective criterion for deletion here (parenthetical with Q followed by 6+ digits) so IMO the main reason to oppose would just be if having a CSD category for something that comes up less than once a week is deemed too bureaucratic. If we don't get a consensus for use of CSD here, I would advocate for including an explicit mention of Wikidata disambiguators in

6398:, where several admins who are well versed in deletion policy still endorsed A7-ing an article that showed clear reasons to believe the subject might meet WP:N (and indeed, it was subsequently kept at an AfD). It makes no sense to have an A7 that isn't tied to AfD, or it becomes an end-run around subjects that are notable, but individual admins don't think are important. 2339:(2017). Although this didn't address the question of drafts that previously survived a pre-G13 deletion discussion, it clearly intended that all 6 months abandoned draft pages would be deleted under G13 regardless of their history. There was not, for example, even sufficient concern about mainspace articles that were unilaterally draftified being auto-deleted by G13. -- 5969:, but they really need to be more than just essays is they are to have the desired effect. I'm quite sure that those who are abusing/misusing A7 do not consider it abuse/misuse. The way to solve that is to make policy more specific. That's why so many think significance is a synonym for notability; because policy is as clear as mud on what it's actually supposed to mean. 1973:. There's probably a better way to word this, such as adding "if the Wikidata item number matches the disambiguator" to have them qualify, but even that may result in false positives. Probably best to just discuss each redirect in discussions (though I'd be okay with a title blacklist restriction of some sort per th discussion I've linked above in my previous comment.) 4327:

However, spammers may attempt to preserve their spam across multiple projects, so in some cases it may be prudent to chase an article across several different language projects (I once chased a promotional biography for a Brazilian actor into the Latin and Indonesian Wikipedias of all places). That having been said, the ultimate deletion rationale for that article is

2102:, and that includes administrators being able to judge without specialist knowledge and without reference to anything other than the article, what makes every type of product covered remarkable or unremarkable. I am confident I could do that for something like digital cameras or cuddly toys, but I wouldn't have a clue when it came to things like saris or clarinets. 3650:

though the page is deemed not to be problematic (if the image is independently problematic than an existing speedy criterion or FFD can deal with it). It also brings into scope images that were on pages deleted for other reasons (G5, G7, U1 and U3 come to mind as possibilities). All this is though assuming there is a problem PROD cannot deal with (I don't know).

1697:.I think that the submarines are easily distinguished from the legitimate deletion candidates. Furthermore, although there aren't boatloads of these redirects extant at present, they're being created all the time. What you have to realize is that speedy deletion eligible redirects are a very small fraction of the total created, no more than 2% in my experience. 8341:

watchlist as they go in or out of categories. But if a page DOES show up in your watchlist as having gone in or out of a category in the last 7 days, it did. If the pages on your watchlist are very active, you may not be able to see more than a few days back. If that is the case, temporarily clear your watchlist except for the category itself, then reload

6144:

processes. If you insist on people putting in the same work to nominate something for A7 as for AfD or PROD then there's very little point in having it at all. Getting rid of it would massively increase the AfD/PROD workload and lead to some very silly outcomes (e.g. "Fred Bloggs is a 14 year old student from Nowhereville" surviving for at least a week).

7788:

obviously hopeless stuff for six more months. Past proposals here at WT:CSD for extending A11 and A7 to draftspace have been countered with "use G11 more liberally". I seem to have misread the sentiment for a more liberal interpretation of G11 for hopelessly non-notable pages. (Never before has DGG been quick enough to remove my db-g11 tag before

6481:, the sources are fairly but not completely independent - they're not self-published, they're third party, but they're a mix of primary and secondary with more of the former. But a lot of people, even people who're well familiar with deletion policy, argued for A7 deletion because mail order brides aren't something they think should be important. 5402:+1 to the addition. I remember when I first got into this, looking at the G5 wording and being confused: If somebody is blocked, how could they create a new page? To those who are saying, "this is so obvious it doesn't need explanation", consider that you've been doing this for so long, it's obvious to you, but may not be obvious to others. -- 2660:, I would enthusiastically support this change. We need to find a better way to separate the drafts that have potential from the ones that don't, and this process should not be time based. Drafts that have no hope of ever becoming an article should be deleted promptly, and drafts that do have potential should not be subject to any sort of 5716:, you are misreading me (hence why clarifying A7 is so important). If someone writes a new article that says "Peter was considered the most important artist of Denmark in the 21st century" but without providing a reference than that can be validly declined for A7 (unless you can prove the statement is bogus) – that is a key test of A7. 1751:. A new CSD is probably one of the most reliable and efficient means to catch and delete these redirects as they are created – even if cases are few, CSD is more efficient than periodically starting RfDs with clear consensus for deletion. Additionally, if a new criterion (R5) is created, it could possibly be expanded to include 4096:

former common practice, for afds and the like more so than speedies; it's rarer now mostly because you now need to be autoconfirmed to upload files locally (plus, the requirements for autoconfirmed have gone up) and we have the clause in F5 for nonfree files. Only weakly supportive because I think fileprod can handle this. —

7531:"the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view" The more fundamental point here is that content that is wither made up (like the A11 standard), or is based on an unreliable source like Facebook where the author made it all, it cannot be salvaged, it is fundamentally unsuitable. 4905:. Now surely most versions, years down the line, are going to be substantially different anyway? But should we codify this with some time limit? What we really don't need is the current situation, where an article can have several years of existence (and whatever editing effort went into it) and then 4463:. Could you clarify whether your interpretation of our policy applies only in those cases where a history merge has been done, or in all cases where a sock has re-created an article that had previously been deleted, regardless of whether the previous revisions have been restored or histmerged? Thanks, 7699:

Yes, in both directions - G11 doesn't mention notability, significance, or anything along those lines. You can G11 stuff that flies past notability if there's no usable content (for instance, I'd probably G11 any article about a company written in the 2nd person, even if that company had revenues of

7618:

Well, my interpretation of sentence 3 ("Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.") is that the article text has to be actively, pushily, attempting to persuade the reader about qualities of the subject. Merely putting your product

7316:

said. G11, like all criteria, is supposed to be objective and that means when deciding whether to delete, we have to focus on what is actually there and not what we think the creator might have intended. Remember this: Knowledge only works because people donate their free time to write about subjects

6797:

Remember that A7 incorporated (or soon came to incorporate I don't recall the exact sequence, although I participated in the RfC) the formerly separate criterion in place to delete a flood of articles about garage bands and bar bands. These were almost never notable, and often included no indications

6432:

agree with that, but from the discussion I linked, you'll see it's clear a lot of people don't, so I think it's clear it's important that A7 articles something along the lines of the idea that A7 is a lower standard than WP:N - it's for articles that give you no reason to think the subject might meet

6412:

Mistakes happen, even by admins who frequently deal with deletion requests. Having a full article in a notable magazine dedicated to your life's story is not something ordinary and the deleting admin should have noticed that. Nothing that could conceivably survive AFD should ever be deleted as A7 but

6350:

with cases that would be obvious fails of notability and thus almost unanimous deletes at AfD; in this regard, the nominator for an A7 should be confident that should their A7 be declined by a perceived failure to meet either of these two tests, the article should still be highly likely fail at AfD.

5696:

You do realize that changing it to "any credible claim of notability" would increase A7's barrier tremendously? The current policy does not require claims of notability for good reasons. A7 is supposed to keep out articles from people writing about their hobby band, their local soccer fan club, their

5681:

Is a sentence a "wall of text" (notwithstanding others might write a better sentence); we effectively have an upcoming ArbCom case that effectively revolves around an admins actions on A7 (e.g. it is not just new users)? When people can get blocked from A7, they will probably make a better attempt to

5187:

Thanks, but you are experienced in SPIs etc. There are plenty of editors applying CSD tags who have never done an SPI, and who look at the block log of the blocked editor creating the article, but don't realise that they should check the date the master was blocked? I thought it might be helpful for

5054:

where multiple sysops say that best practice is that, for many (most?) speedy deletion tags for sysops to place the tag and let another delete rather than just press the button themselves, or the split among sysops (if anything leaning negative) to the proposed revision of G8 - a proposal made in the

4844:

There is, as has been said above, no policy requiring admins to tag pages before deleting them, if one or more of the CSD apply. When I went though RfA, I pledged, as did quite a few admins at that time, to use "tag and bag", meaning that I would not delete pages not already tagged by another editor,

4743:

Tagging is not necessary. Some form of notification about the deletion is nice. But there are cases when an admin can just delete A7's without further comment. For example, assume I am on speedy patrol, find a tagged A7 non-notable band, delete it and then check the creator's other edits. If they are

4537:

If the original page was created before the user was banned then G5 does not apply. As SoWhy explains, if a page has some revisions that are eligible for speedy deletion (under any criterion) and some that are not then the page is not eligible for speed deletion. As Thincat says if there is any doubt

4420:

Short answer: No. And already covered imho. Longer answer: Per policy, a page is only eligible of deletion if all revisions are eligible. If somehow revisions from a page that is not eligible are mixed in with a page that is eligible, the resulting page is no longer eligible since you can restore the

4275:

If an article was deleted on the English wikipedia, but has been (I assume more-or-less directly) translated into multiple other languages, is it legitimate to speedily delete those translations on the other language's sites? To be specific about my reason for asking, I recently flagged a page on the

4095:

Wikilawyering about which criterion to add it to aside, I'm weakly supportive on the merits. Once it's not in G8 anymore, we lose the misleading "non-existent" part from the title; having been used on a legitimately-deleted page (and nowhere else) is already restrictive. This also actually reflects

2875:

Sure. My preferred solution is to remove draftspace entirely, and to not invite any newcomer to create any newpage until after they are autoconfirmed, and to recommend that they don't attempt new pages before improving existing pages. "Anyone can edit" doers not need to mean that "anyone can create

2377:

I disagree with this as there are a great many pages that survive XfD on promises of improvement (editing the text, promises to merge/redirect to a mainspace, or "keep and let G13 take care of it") that demonstrate that not all the keep XfDs show sustaining effort/improvement. I have no problem if a

428:

implies there have been other such discussions, do you have a better sense of the frequency of such redirects? I also think the criterion should be far more strict to satisfy the need for objectivity and incontestability; we should err on the side of ambiguous cases being sent to RFD. I would suggest

7555:

Adam9007, yes, I would have G11 move away "obvious intent to advertise" to "serves to advertise an obviously non-notable product, and there are no acceptable sources for any of the content". I dispute that NPOV can be met by including zero sources. For honest scholarship, the sole source you tube

7176:

It is possible for an inexperienced editor, not aware of Knowledge's sourcing standards, to write an essentially neutral article about a company or person sourcing it entirely to press releases or the company or person's own web site, when proper independent sources are available to support the same

7116:

The current text is completed changed from "simply having a company or product as its subject". The removal of that text didn't break anything, that text was not needed. The new text, protecting NPOV spam from G11, is an illogical contortion of the preceding sentence, skipping the premise that the

6865:

I think...part of A7 is that most editors writing on article on a notable subject should be able to exceed A7 entirely by accident. I appreciate the people who take (and have) extra time to do a pseudo-BEFORE and try to save every article possible, but I'm not sure it's required either by the letter

6393:

Except, of course, since WP:N is the standard inclusion criterion, and if you ignore that when you've evaluating importance or significance, it becomes a lot more personal an arbitrary, and you get in the obviously broken situation where articles that pass, or give indications they may pass WP:N are

6245:

search should be done. Significance is not what results from a BEFORE search, it means that there is a sufficient chance that a search will uncover no0tability that it is wrong to delete without doing the search and discussing the results. It might, just barely, be possible for there to be a notable

6194:

My point is that the Google search isn't required and shouldn't be required. If there is something in the article which suggests to you that a Google search is likely to turn up evidence of notability or good references then it probably isn't a good A7. If not then the Google search isn't necessary.

4558:

I would like to understand whether, in terms of the current policy, if it is allowed for an admin to CSD delete an article, say on A7 grounds, without this article being CSD tagged by anyone first. (And correspondingly without anyone being notified about the article being nominated for CSD deletion,

4155:

Sorry, I wasn't around when the relevant discussion took place. It used to be (I'm fairly certain) that disambiguation pages that contained exactly two items, one of which was the primary topic, were eligible for CSD. When I look at the new G14 criterion, that seems to no longer be the case. Is this

3625:

If FilePROD can handle those images just fine, why create a new criterion to basically do the same but only for a small subsection of those files? If they main problem is files uploaded by users for webhosting purposes, how about instead we expand U5 to encompass images uploaded to be solely used on

2803:

have potential. Unless we actually start applying notability guidelines to drafts (which is an idea that has faced considerable opposition in the past), I see G13 as a reasonable practical solution, especially given the deliberately low bar towards undeletion and retention. Perhaps what we're really

2172:

I have observed that several administrators have started treating pages that have been nominated or deleted under CSD:G13 (Stale Drafts and submissions) to be summarily restored citing a finding that because the last XfD was a Keep (or no consensus) CSD:G13 is invalid on the page until a XfD results

1841:

There's a plausible explanation of what's going on at the RFD. In short, a bot is creating a list of missing articles with links that include a Q1234567 style number, these articles are being created, and the bot is removing them from the list based on their now being blue links. I suggest therefore

1826:

R3 is a bad fit because they are not implausible (on the contrary they're very plausible, just not useful), not typos and not otherwise created in error. They are created very deliberately, it seems because they're appearing as redlinks somewhere so what we need to do is fix whatever is causing that

302:

Regarding the first bullet, the main reason (as stated) is to avoid things that look like database identifiers but which are actually something different, and as a side effect situations such as you describe indicate the need to check everything is correct - such checks (and any necessary fixes) are

8037:

G11 has nothing to do with how many sources are cited. Plenty of promotional articles and drafts, properly deleted as such, include citations to independent sources. If the argument that merely by existing, a neutral article about a company or a person can attract attention and patrons or followers

7382:

advertising. All this'll do is make G11 even more subjective than it already is, and far too many people already think that COI and autobois mean automatic G11 as it is. This'll just encourage that thinking, even though intent is much harder to objectively analyse than content. For that reason, G11

5577:

My understanding is that speedy deletion criteria concern themselves primarily with the present state of an article and its older revisions, not about what it could be. So an article about a notable subject that doesn't bother to explain why the topic is important or significant - say by presenting

5172:

CSD:G5 clearly says that it “applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block and that have no substantial edits by others.” In your scenario of an article created by a sock of a blocked editor, the page would thus be eligible for CSD:G5 so long as there are no

5073:

for from WP is that the revenge deletions and the abuse remain slower than I can type responses to - I'm realistic. As this article is said to have been substantially identical to that deleted, then at least not much has been wasted. I couldn't describe that AfD as "firm consensus" though, when the

4968:

FYI, it was recreated 2019-11-16 04:46:17 UTC. So a bit over a month of existence, not years. There were three edits after the recreation before it was tagged for G4 (much less than the 99 revisions between the April 2015 version copied for the recreation and the version deleted in September 2015).

4105:

Agree with your comment regarding FilePROD in general. I would mainly support an extension of U5 to cover files uploaded specifically for use on U5'able pages just because it seems unnecessary bureaucratic to be able to speedy delete the userpage but then having to PROD the images uploaded for this

3972:

I strongly suspect this would be used as a generic "unencyclopedic image" criterion on images where the deleting admin doesn't think they have any encyclopedic use. I also agree with the above that it doesn't fit well with the rest of G8. If we want to create a CSD for unused personal files then it

3794:

translate into "No article by this title can ever be created". Maybe if you limit it to images usable only on an article that has been salted. But "usable only on" seems a rather subjective judgement for a CSD. Also, i would like to see some figures on how often this is occurring and being deleted

3668:

despite the fact that many of those files might be useful in the future (and oftentimes should probably be transferred to Commons to allow more people to see them). It would also apply to files that were uploaded for pages that were deleted for belonging on another project or reasons of too soon or

3036:

be used by IPs/COIs so that's probably where we see things differently. I think draftspace should be used by them but also by any editor that wants to craft their article before plopping it into mainspace and would welcome collaboration in doing so. Glad we had this discussion because I think we'll

2120:

In any case I think the chance of a product in fact being significant, even notable, without that being clearly stated in an initial version of an article is much higher than for a person or a band, and the frequency of spam for such topics is not high engough that we need a new speedy criterion. I

1864:

Or it could just, y'know, not populate its lists with such horribly bad article titles in the first place. "No page found on enwiki" works at least as well as "]", and would be much less effort to implement than logging onto a different wiki and editing a page there (which might not be a redirect;

1711:

I'd wager we get a couple new redirects with Wikidata codes each month. Perhaps that is too low of a frequency to justify a whole new CSD criterion. As someone that does a lot of redirect patrolling I'm somewhat selfishly inclined to argue for the use of CSD here, as it would make my life easier. I

283:

are not useful, this discussion is solely to determine whether there is a consensus that these specific redirects should be speedily deleted, and if so what the detailed criterion should be. If you wish to discuss Wikidata and or redirects based on it more generally then you are in the wrong place.

7268:

the author wrote them, which is not a vaguely objective standard. In the case of the Sebby Frazer draft quoted above I can absolutely see somebody who isn't trying to promote the subject writing an article with that kind of wording, and the notability of the subject (or the available sources) have

6564:

rightly points out, and as I tried to say above, the standard is and has been "importance or significance". To change that would require a wide and clear consensus, probably a rather stronger one than would be needed to adopt a new CSD, and I for one would be opposed. While I am very much a fan of

6298:

One major reason why I think the "lower standard" language must stay is that people even now all too often tag an article with A7 using summaries such as "does not assert notability" or even "is not notable". Notability is far too complex and situation dependent to be a speedy deletion criterion,

6096:

The hypothetical David Attenborough article would qualify for A7, assuming it's unsourced. A7 isn't intended to be an instant AfD or anything like that and is purely judged on the current state of the article. Yes this would lead to an article on a very notable person being deleted here but that's

5741:

I was only quoting from your suggestion. You used the words "claim of notability" instead of the current "claims of significance or importance". Your example would probably be A7able because claims need to be credible and "was considered the most important artist of Denmark in the 21st century" is

3952:

as per Cryptic. Overloading CSDs to to multiple different things is generally a bad idea. G8 currently deals with pages that are "dependent" in a very clear, obvious, and non-metaphorical way: mostly talk pages of deleted pages, less often archive pages of deleted pages, or the like. This would be

3915:

And minus the article part. I proposed expanding G8 because of it's similar (due to the "dependent on" part). Expanding F5 would not work, so either we create a new G15 or F12 or we add it to criteria that are likely to have accompanying uploads, such as G11 or U5. I'm not set on changing G8 but I

3789:

As written this is much too broad, and may catch things that are potentially useful. For example, suppose someone uploads a photo indented to go in the info box of an articel which is then deleted for g11, or G12. A revised version may be created which is not a copyvio and is NPOV, where the image

3086:

So, your DRAFTPROD would only be an option after six months no edits? You are proposing to replace G13 with DRAFTPROD? This is an unexpected feature of the proposal. Terrible idea. There are way too many. Abandoned drafts will build up again into the tens of thousands, including the scattered

2468:

I get that. I meant to address SmokeyJoe's observation that the "right process" is to tag and ignore. If that's the case, then we should just say that drafts are no longer eligible for discussion at MfD, eliminate that step entirely, and allow G13 to work (or make it into a DRAFTPROD process which

228:

Upon further thought, I might want to reword the first bullet point. I can imagine a lot of cases where the ID code is unquestionably from Wikidata but it isn't clear if it refers to the correct subject. Maybe it refers to a different person or topic with a similar name. Because that's exactly the

7833:

I came across many pages tagged and speedy deleted for G11 when the content was things like "Ryan Dhesa is just a really cool guy", "I am cool", "Adithya Gireesh is a very cool kid (I should know because I am him). Please, Knowledge, accept this article.", "hi my name is Akshal and im cool", etc.

7787:

MfD either goes with "delete" or "leave for G13". I try to discourage unimportant hopeless stuff like this going to MfD, because that will lead to MfD becoming standard processing for too much hopeless stuff that is not even worth the conversation. Some reviewers are irked at leaving completely

7718:

There are plenty of times when it would be nice to have a speedy deletion criterion of "unencyclopedic crap", but it isn't a good idea, and that's basically what is being proposed here. The new suggested criteria in the above are "It is promoting" and "There are no reliable sources". The first is

7654:

Okay, I think you're letting your pursuit of your goal of deletion totally cloud your judgement. It's completely obvious that article is written in an encyclopaedic fashion, and wouldn't require any significant kind of re-write to be an encyclopaedia article, and a neutral one at that. The only

7599:

I don't see how it can be made more objective than it already is. What's subjective about G11 is the 'Unambiguous' bit; what's unambiguous to some may not be unambiguous to others, and I've seen the line drawn at many different places by different editors. CSD is meant for obvious cases that most

7136:

This is blatant promotion, squarely in the centre of the intent of G11. It serves only to promote the YouTuber; the name is unique, google will take you straight to his channel. He and it is not remotely plausibly notable. There are no suitable sources, so even if notable the content cannot be

6569:

as it is curntly written describes more than just a web search, and is not suitable for referencing in a CSD. I would be willing to discuss some mention of a web search, but there would need to be more discussion of whether to include such a mention at all, before trying to draft language, in my

6240:

that a topic is notable or probably notable, it is abusive to delete it, instead of improving it. Notability is largely about coverage, what independent sources have written about a topic. It therefore requires sourcing. Significance is about accomplishments, and may be accepted provisionally in

5218:

I am looking at the case where the master was blocked months ago, but new socks of the master are creating new articles and then getting blocked. An editor looking at G5 and not familiar with masters/SPI, might just assume that as the sock was not blocked when the article was created, G5 doesn’t

5055:

name of efficiency? As someone who thinks my best work on wiki has been my content work and is also gravely concerned about the number of editor hours available to support all of our processes and tasks I don't think it's accurate to paint such a broad picture. It is more nuanced than that. Best,

5018:

had changed, but as a very deliberate attempt to evade that prior consensus.Your suggestion that G4s be tagged and discussed for a week would be, in essence, requiring a new afd, no matter the similarity to the prior version. That's not a reasonable use of volunteer time, not in an era where the

4347:

No. But reasons for deletion on one are likely to be the same reasons on another. When considering deletion of a non-English topic, I take very seriously the quality of the native language Knowledge article, or the reasons for its deletion there. WP:PROF-failing “academic” biographies often do

3649:

I'd change that slightly to something like "Files uploaded for use on a page that has been speedily deleted and which serve no other useful purpose.". That changes the order slightly to mean that the page has to be deleted before the image, which avoids the potential for images to be deleted even

2967:

People proposing a new DRAFTPROD deletion process need to at least get to the details of how it would works, which they are not doing. What is the duration? What is the need? What tracking and notifications would be involved. So far, I have seen no such details, nor any reason why G13 doesn't

2798:

The issue I see is that no one really agrees concretely on the elements of a "draft with potential"—is it a draft that satisfies notability guidelines, a draft that has one or two reliable citations, any draft that an editor slapped a promising tag on? There are some obvious extremes—a draft that

2097:

To expand on Atlantic306's answer a little, you would need to start by be more specific than "product". It could include computer software, vegetables, processed food, steel ingots, railway sleepers, musical albums (already covered by A9), industrial chemicals, household cleaning products, books,

7977:

removing the note per everybody above. The original impetus for having the note was a series of G11 speedy deletions of articles about food products (mainly biscuits) that were unfamiliar to the (iirc) North American administrator who deleted them, but were trivially notable products very widely

7810:

would seem to apply to all namespaces (a draft biography is, in fact, a biography), though I believe trying that would be ... controversial. The principle makes sense to me (and it's a bit unfortunate that we're using this example, where the nominating statement indicating it could be a privacy

5847:

That the hypothetical Dave article should qualify for A7 I think is fairly uncontroversial. As it pretty clearly would also qualify for A1, there wouldn't be very much any of us could do about that on our end. I agree that PRESERVE means we should make a good faith effort not do delete or remove

5785:

I'm not sure the argument from CREEP is super compelling, given the most misunderstood criteria, among what is probably the single most lawyerly complicated, and least understood policy page on the project already. At any rate, I wasn't necessarily advocating for providing substantive additional

5315:

So how about adding a sentence (or line in brackets) at the end of the first bullet of G5 saying something like: "By definition, therefore, these blocked users will be sockpuppets of already blocked users (called "masters"), whose block was in place before the article was created". I think this

4865:

It depends on both the criterion and the severity. I'd consider an admin who tagged a G3 (for vandalism, not for a hoax) or G10 instead of deleting it immediately as negligent - if you think you need a second opinion on these, they're probably not speedies. At the other end of the spectrum are

4728:

Hmmm, I am still not getting much clarity from the responses above. I feel that some kind of a clarification on this point in the language of the policy is needed. The specific situation I was referring to is where an admin deletes an article with a deletion log summary "notability not asserted"

3324:

Because I am confused (and I suspect the Closing admin might be confused). What I'm asking is "Pages that have survived their most recent deletion attempt (XFD) are exempt from G13 deletion." I don't think your vote is on that topic. There is a bot that goes around AFC drafts and reminds at 5

3010:

We already have way too many poor MfD nominations of drafts. Often, too often, someone nominates for deletion a draft that is worthy of mainspace. The standard of MfD nominations of drafts is so poor that DraftProd fails for that reason alone. A reason for PROD is overload of AfD with obvious

1903:

for now. While I support deletion of all the Wikidata-ID redirects, I am not sure it will come up frequently enough in the future to be a worthy addition to CSD. Also, half of the current Q redirects seem to be false positives. Happy to revisit this in a few months if situation does not improve.

114:

there are calls for redirects like this (i.e. ones which contain the Wikidata identifier as a disambiguator) to be speedily deleted. Personally I'm not certain of the need to speedily delete or that there is sufficient volume to warrant doing so, but my voice is in a minority so I'm starting the

8240:

In any case, unless it's a "no brainer" situation, I would do the deletion "slowly" - put a note on the category description page saying the category is in the process of being cleaned out, and link to the CSD. Notify editors who are adding things to the category and ask them to stop. If it's

8006:

were to come up at MfD, I would expect soem editors to opt for deletion essentially on the ground of "not notable, and never will be". And as it stands, this certainly does not demonstrate notability, and would be an A7 in article space. But one of the points of draft space is to allow time and

7838:

for details). None of these, or the example that started this discussion, come remotely close to meeting the criteria for G11, but equally they would all be slamdunk A1, A3 and/or A7 deletions in article space. I'm strongly opposed to extending those criteria to draft space as is, but I can see

378:

I think one could legitimately argue that a Wikidata identifier is neither a typo nor a misnomer, and R3 only applies to recently created redirects. If we wanted to make it clear that WD identifiers fall under the R3 umbrella I'd be OK with that but I think a new criterion is a better solution.

152:

having identifier Q42 might be mentioned) - these cases need discussion. The third bullet is to ensure that we don't delete required attribution or anything similar, but doesn't cause e.g. a corrected typo to prevent speedy deletion (the first title would be G6). The final bullet is intended to

6143:

Speedy deletion is supposed to be a quick process for simple, uncontroversial cases. If something requires research then it isn't suitable for speedy deletion. A7 is explicitly intended to get rid of articles which aren't worth putting through AfD or PROD, in order to lighten the load on those

5983:

I am opposed to any change to A7, especially the one proposed by Britishfinance (for the same reasons as SoWhy). I also disagree that all the criteria are objective. G11 is hardly objective. Even criteria like A1, G1, G3 (vandalism and hoax) are not black and white. We will not be able to stop

4074:

I'd replace point (c) (per SoWhy) with "have no foreseeable placement in an article and are not suitable for transfer to Wikimedia Commons". The first part is the same wording F10 uses (because we don't want to delete files that are useful for articles we don't have yet), the second (which may

3460:

Absent a significant change in consensus, I intend to close this RFC on November 7th (30 days) with a consensus established that surviving a previous MFD does not immunize a page that would normally be eligible for G13 against any further G13s. I also intend to mobilize this consensus against

3402:

per most of the above objections, which have already gotten to every point I would have raised. The main one to me is that XfDs are "survived" for any number of reasons, many of them venue-related and other technicalities. That said, various admins' declines in particular cases are valid, when

147:

The rationale for the first bullet and last bullets is to protect against cases where there is something which looks like a database identifier but isn't (these redirects need discussion). The second bullet is to avoid any cases where the identifier is itself notable in some way (e.g. it's not

8340:

You can get a partial list of changes to category membership by adding the category to your watchlist and making sure your watchlist filters are set to have either nothing checked in "type of change" or have "category changes" checked. I say partial, because I've seen pages NOT show up in my

7561:

Hobit, yes, there are a great many new pages written into draftspace that are like this, no reliable sources, no claim of notability, and is promoting something about the author. Often, it is a postdocs's CV, or a clever new commercial product, or a YouTube channel deceptively advertised, or

7156:

I would support this proposal. In my experience at NPP, there's quite a few articles that are written "neutrally" that use nothing but press releases as their sources. An article with that kind of sourcing will by definition be promotional, as any non-OR information will be from an inherently

4710:

It's allowed, admins can delete any page which meets the CSD criteria. I have spent a fair amount of time reviewing G12 nominations only to find when I checked the history that the page was tagged by one of our best copyright admins, which always strikes me as a bit of a waste of time. Speedy

4628:

Admin here. Depends on the CSD. If it's really blatant, or if it's a recreation of an AFDed article or something, then sure, kill it immediately. But in most cases, I prefer not to just zap articles, but to tag them for someone else to zap. But I'm not sure I'd make that mandatory in policy -

4326:

short answer: no. Different language Wikipedias are self-governed by their respective community's consensus, and our policies do not have any direct bearing on theirs or vice versa. Notability guidelines may vary, so an article deemed worth keeping on enWiki may not be kept on other projects.

3178:

use case for why I think G13 should be supplanted by DRAFTPROD. It is the kind of cases I laid out or DES laid out. If an article is abandoned then DRAFTPROD will function identically to G13. If it's not abandoned, which we would know because someone would remove the DRAFTPROD label, then the

7772:

I honestly don't know what MfD does with draft articles like this. Is the consensus to delete things that are so far the WP:N bar that they won't ever be an article? I'm not a huge fan of draft space to begin with (I see the advantages, but I worry about AfC becoming a required gateway for

6676:

Not an exhaustive BEFORE, but my own test is that any declined A7 (without the decliner showing sources that I did not see), should be a strong AfD delete candidate. I can't see any other way to protect myself from the ambiguity regarding the definition (and be fair to authors), and I think

5344:

It is just clarification (or communication). We have many editors applying CSDs with only a few thousand edits who have never gone near SPI that I think would find this clarification helpful. The clarifications above are helpful, and were well made - why not include in the G5 text? thanks.

5237:

that is almost the only use case for G5 that actuality comes up at all frequently. A blocked editor cannot create any articles while blocked, so the only way for such an editor to create an article is to use a sock puppet account (or to edit while logged out, and go through AfC). In theory a

1865:

plenty of these are the results of page moves) to add a db-g7 tag that wouldn't be honored by most admins anyway.Or we could just blacklist the titles, which fixes the problem here instantly and doesn't require the help of wikidata botops - or their consent, which might not be forthcoming. —

5645:

Normally I would agree, but A7 is complex and one of the most misused/abused of the CSDs; there are several editors even from the past few weeks, who have messages on their talk pages from admins warning them of blocks if they continue to abuse A7. This one is worth getting right, imho.

5545:

than here, but anyone criticizing a candidate merely for having bluelinks in their CSD log without looking at the state of the pages when they were declined or deleted isn't doing due diligence. I'm no fan of arguing with oppose voters, but this is the sort of case where it's merited.

6981: 6123:

I totally disagree with this. On this example, if I could find three Google News hits on "David Attenborough", it would take approximately 15 seconds to add those references and disqualify it from A7. "I was lazy" is a terrible excuse for an administrator. Or is this an example of the

5379:

When a blocked or banned person uses an alternate account (sock-puppet) to avoid a restriction, any pages created via the sock account after the block or ban of the primary account qualify for G5 (if not substantially edited by others). Indeed this is the most common case for applying

4999:

In addition to the similarity to the deleted versions (which I noted, though not that it was actually identical to the April version - I'd assumed it had been edited in the meantime on whatever mirror it was re-copied from), it was created it one edit by a very inexperienced user, who

2242:

Asked the question as the affirmative even though I believe that this is not the existing consensus. Open to any editor linking to where a previous consensus was to prove me wrong. If the consensus was established recently (last 4 months) I'm more than happy to suspend this request.

7536:

WilyD. "wouldn't be eligible for G11 deletion, because it doesn't require any kind of a rewrite to serve as an encyclopaedia article rather than advertisement." This means that you think the content can serve as an encyclopedic article, with less-than-a-fundamental rewrite? That's

4057:

I agree with this except (c). If the picture was of the user's pet for example, shouldn't the same apply? U5 already allows deletion of any userpage that confuses Knowledge with a webhost, so it's logical, that all content used solely for this page should be deleted as well. Regards

423:

for now. I agree that it is not covered under R3 since this isn't a typo or misnomer. I'm opposed mostly because I don't know if the frequency justifies a speedy criterion. This is the first such redirect I've come across, so I really have no sense of how frequent a problem this is.

210:- Firstly, I agree with this on its own merits: these ID codes are not useful. Secondly, I don't think we should be using Wikidata here on Knowledge at all. I've found WD content to be very rarely useful, frequently erroneous, and more often just empty content presented confusingly. 5742:

not credible for a century that is only 20 years old at this point. As for BEFORE, as I said below, policy already limits deletions to the "most obvious cases". I don't think any article where significance can be established within seconds counts as "most obvious", do you? Regards

4744:

about the even less notable guitar player of that band, I'll go ahead and delete without further interaction. As a general point, I think admins on New Page Patrol should usually tag instead of deleting, but that is more a matter of best practices for NPP than for the CSD policy. —

8524:

The exact wording of CSD criteria can be extremely important in determining what can and cannot be speedily deleted, and so it is important that any changes are done with careful thought to the consequences and that any significant change is done with explicit consensus (see also

8368:

Thanks for replies. If I come to a category tagged as C1, how can I know whether it meets the criterion and can be deleted? Should we not have some kind of "smart" tag, perhaps similar to the G13 tag which is (usually) green if the page is eligible for deletion, red if it is not?

2138: 5478:, whereas notability only concerns the latter. In as much as the both concern the latter, yes, credible significance is a lower standard, but because A7 concerns both, it's perfectly possible to write an article on a notable subject that qualifies for A7. Consider a new article: 3714:

I can't conceive of any justification for new time-delayed file speedy deletion criteria, between fileprod and files being restorable for something like fourteen years now - most of the reason the current F-series criteria have the delay is because they were written before then.

2755:, as it is not uncontestable (anyone can contest it by editing the draft, if they get the opportunity). Even if draft prods are robotically applied, it is still better than the current system as other editors will have an opportunity to contest the deletion and save the draft. – 6536:

Which is why I think we should do away with the "importance or significance" terminology, and call it something else (I'm open to suggestions). It may have made sense when A7 was first enacted, but these days it's far, far, far too easily (and often!) confused with notability.

7120:

In recent years, here at WT:CSD, there have been many calls to expand CSD to cover DraftSpace. The best almost-agreed proposal was to expand CSD#A11 ("Obviously invented") to drafts, but this was rejected largely by the argument: Where the issue is serious, CSD#G11 suffices.

6866:

or the spirit of the policy. At any rate, nothing is ever really deleted, and there's nothing preventing the offended author from dropping a note that itself exceeds A7, and any good faith admin should restore the article, and if needed, send it to AfD for further discussion.

8529:). Experience shows that this is frequently not understood by new editors (it is different to how most of Knowledge works), and there have been multiple instances of new users changing the criteria so a page they want to keep is not eligible and/or one they want deleted is. 5446:. Horton is the oldest account, Louis is their sock who was blocked first. Anything created by Horton (the master) after (the sock) Louis' block is also G5 eligible. It's the first block on any account run by the person that counts, not just the block on the master account. 4866:

G11s, A7s, and G12s, which should almost always be tagged due to the potential for error (of judgment for the first two, of fact for G12). "Always" is a strong word though, and I have no issue with an admin who deletes them in the most unambiguous cases - articles like

4498:

For G5, a histmerge is the only time I can think of when only parts of the revisions are G5-eligible. If the original page has been deleted for another reason and a sock recreates it, then the recreation is eligible for G5 (if the other requirements are met). Regards

2378:

bot comes in every 5 months and changes a single byte on the page or if someone does a procedural clean on the page to reset the 6 months unedited clock. What I do care about is Administrators ignoring both the written text of the CSD and the intention of the CSD.

8165:

An overlap does not mean that every (or even most) articles that fall under 1 criteria also fall under another. In article space there are articles that meet all of A7, A11 and G11, some that meet only two of them and some that meet only 1 (in all combinations).

6515:, but which the wider world would not consider to be "significant or important" people (i.e. it can imply a higher standard of "notability")? I see editors in the original proposal !vote noted the ambiguity. However, these terms were !voted on by the community? 1679:

Thanks for that list. I maintain my opposition, but if it is adopted I feel adding a note about false positives (e.g. the French submarines) and it does not apply to things like train numbers or vehicle license plates which are essentially database identifiers.

6476:

And so yeah, this is a pretty clear indication of why A7 needs to be tied to WP:N. This kind of use of "independent" is highly idiosyncratic to Knowledge, that comes from trying to fight spam without any real understand of what's going on. (and really, per

6351:

There will be valid A7s that a more thorough WP:BEFORE would have shown to be notable (e.g. sources not available online), however, A7 is not designed to fully replicate AfD, and there is an onus on the author to better demonstrate notability in such cases.

8387:

if it has been tagged for at least seven days). If it isn't empty, I remove the tag. While this isn't perfect, it tends to work in practice, as there are rarely population/depopulation wars without someone removing the speedy tag and restarting the clock.

4280:. It was deleted, but the article's author (perhaps an autobiographer) has translated it into several other languages. For example, here's the German translation of the deleted page, which I attempted to flag for deletion using the normal process there: 6896:

I think that perhaps the discussion over A7 should be moved to, or restarted on, a separate sub-page, where we can discuss both what the policy should be, and how that can be captured in perhaps better wording. I also want to draw people's attention to

8180:

The way I usually word it at AfD is that an article with clear promotionalism and bioderline notability should be deleted; but this is for AfD, where we can get community views on each instance. It would in my opinion be mch to subjective for Speedy.

6246:

person with no claims of significance that could properly be put in an article, but I dot recall ever seeing one in practice, not can I thing of a plausible hypothetical example. It may be that we can improve the wording of A7, but this isn't how.

4075:

require tweaking - the intent is to consider both content and license) is because some files may not be useful in an encyclopaedia article but might be useful for a different project. This would need to be a new F12 as it is very different to G8.

2098:

bottled water, tap water, paint, cars, rape kits, sex toys, wine bottles, films, encyclopaedia articles, etc, etc, etc. For each type of product covered by the definition there would need to be a proposed wording that met all the requirements at

2575:. In principle, all G13-deleted pages may be REFUNDED on request, although the deleting admin is encouraged to observe that some other speedy deletion criterion applies (eg G5, G10, G11, G12) and to immediately re-delete per that criterion. -- 8113:

That revision cited no sources, and might have driven traffic to the author or the album. Suppose there had been cited as a source an amazon or itunes page selling the album? Would that have been deletable under a revised G11? If not, why not?

7556:

channel would be included, and then it would obviously fail NPOV, because NPOV cannot me met by using 100% author sources. How is this subjective? Challenge question: Can you paraphrase G11 sentences 3 and 4 in your own objective language?

3991:

per Hut 8.5 and DES. Speedy deletion criteria need to be kept as simple and as narrow as possible to reduce the chance of misuse (accidental or otherwise). Expanding G8 in this manner weakens one of the better worded criteria in this regard.

3127:

restore it to draft space with an AFC tag. Many drafts are created by active Wikipedians. None of which is to say that an MfD closed as "wrong venue" or "not bad enough to delete, leave for further work or G13" should be exempt from G13, but

7835: 5915:, for example, a G12 would be deleted even if it were on a notable topic. That doesn't change the fact that there are several circumstances, based on article content, under which we would delete articles even if they were on notable topics. 3669:

or or. Point is, there are too many reasons why an image might become orphaned and the only objective criterion I can think of is the one U5 (and F10 on Commons) use, i.e. files uploaded by users who mistake Knowledge for a webhost. Regards

2236: 6433:

WP:N. Sources that go some way to it are one way, a short "Libby is a former ambulance driver who now works as the Queen of Canada, Belize, and a dozen or so other countries" also does, because that makes it likely there are good sources.

5964:

it's so. I'll tell you why; it's because policy doesn't give enough instruction about what things like "lower than notability" are supposed to mean, leaving editors to their own interpretations. It's all well and good having essays such as

6195:

The idea of insisting on it in this very obvious case strikes me as rather silly. If Fred Bloggs really has done something important enough to justify having a Knowledge article then the author should have put it in the Knowledge article.

4949:, but also the specific text was so close that it seems very likely it was copied (without attribution) from somewhere else that had originally copied our article. Upon further investigation, I find the recreation was nearly identical to 7545:

SoWhy, yes, lets look at what's there. What is there that can be keep in compliance with core content policies? This child is writing about their YouTube channel and he is seeking more subscribers. This is not comparable to your

1732:

Something that comes up less than once a day isn't going to be a worthwhile speedy deletion criterion. If the existing ones all, without exception, get deleted at RFD, then keeping more from being created sounds like a job for the

7600:

people can readily agree meets the criteria. We shouldn't be expanding CSD to cases where there is likely to be disputes over whether a given page meets the given criterion, which is what you're suggesting. We should be making G11

3093:

You care about active Wikipedians who are trying to use draft space? I don't. Active Wikipedians should draft in userspace or in WikiProject subpages. Are you a supporter of User:TakuyaMurata's draftspace practices? Comment at

2368: 1394: 4671:

And now that you mention this, it occurs to me I G8 talk pages of pages I'm deleting all the time without warning or notice. But I think that makes perfectly sense, and notifying would be obviously stupid in almost every case.

6602:

element doesn't really make any sense. I generally agree CSDs should be based on the state of the article (with exceptions) but A7 shouldn't need to be an exception. The thing about A7 is, if you're not sure, or it might be at

4270: 2155: 6575:

However, the CSD does not require such a search for most uses of A1. Even G12 does not require a further search once a source for the copyvio is identified, although it may well require checking past versions of the article.

5723:

myself pre any A7 tagging (my own standard is that a declined A7 tag, should be a clear-cut AfD delete), that is not required by the A7 rules. Again, hence why we should get this area clarified, even if it means adding more

4777:. Can you provide a specific citation? I'll sometimes tag articles if I have any doubt, and want another set of eyes to confirm, but usually I'll just go ahead and delete stuff that I see which clearly meets some CSD. -- 330:

not apply in this case (and probably most others)? After all, how plausible is a title with the Q-ID in the name really? If anything, it seems like a logical extension of R3 or G6 in those instances in which tagging it with

7275:

Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language...When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of

2593:

go to MfD" - to me that's a very confusing statement and makes for bad choices. But rather than continue here in the middle of the voting section of Hasteur's RfC, I'll collect my thoughts and start a separate discussion.

7067:

2007 Jul: "Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as

2231: 3916:

would argue that any such expansion or new criterion has to make sure the use is limited to the most obvious cases (like the ones GMG mentions above) so as to not have all orphaned images be subject to deletion. Regards

7150: 3264:

per above. Obvious process creep, and folks can just use WP:REFUND if it's important. Also if it's worth going to REFUND for, then perhaps it'll encourage the requestor to work on it and move it into the mainspace :)

500:

What Tavix said. Exhaustive list below. I've left the false positives in (French subs are prominent). Even if all of these were valid candidates, though, it wouldn't be nearly enough for a speedy deletion criterion.

5609:

of notability (either in the references, and/or body text); thus valid A7s, can return as non-valid A7s due to improved referencing and/or body text, even though these improved claims of notability could still fail at

4894:. This was AfDed in 2015. Since then, the article had come back (I don't know when). Today it vanished. That appears to have been one of those "delete as G4" drive-bys with no prior tagging or attempt at discussion. 3897:

Not G8 please. It has nothing to do with the other items in G8 except for G8's overbroad summary. What this really is is the (non-bot-mediated, fairly-rarely-invoked) second half of F5 - "immediately if the image's

463:, anecdotally, from patrolling the back of the new redirect queue I think these come up every other week. It's possible that there's more if editors at the front of the queue consistently nominate them for deletion. 8246:

Sidebar: Knowledge really needs a concept of "no additions allowed" for categories, that would prevent users without advanced user-rights from adding things to a category that is undergoing deletion, merging, etc.

7518:(2) There are no reliable sources, and a quick google reveals the only source is the YouTube channel, which is not a suitable source. (3) WP:BEFORE reveals, easily, that the channel and its author are non-notable. 6235:

that a person or subject is notable, or probably notable, it is abusive to tag for A7 even if claims that could and should have been made in the article were not made. Instead, add them. And similarly, if an admin

3818:. Personal images won't have much of a use on Knowledge and it is pointless to keep personal images that are orphaned. There are plenty of orphaned personal and unencyclopedic images that have been deleted through 8318:

There isn't such a history. One would presumably check the history of articles that the cat would belong on, as well as the editing histories of the category creator and of the editor who tagged it for deletion.

7550:, not unless you are Terry Pratchett or his publisher. Being a fan of the subject is not like being the author of the subject. NB. That was 2004, and these days NPP would promptly PROD or Draftify that article. 6572:

If any information in the title or on the page, including links, allows an editor, possibly with the aid of a web search, to find further information on the subject in an attempt to expand or edit it, A1 is not

4293: 3758:

issue here? To me (British) a "personal photo" might be merely a photo I possess (conceivably not even of a person) as well as meaning a photo of me or of some other person (presumably a photo I have taken).

7923:

Sorry Thryduulf, I am not agreeing here. Draft:Sebby Frazer is obviously promotion. Promotion of himself, his YouTube channel, and especially if you like sports videos. NPOV writing style is a feature of

7513:

the author wrote them". No. the objective criteria are: (1) It is promoting, specifically this one is promoting YouTube channel by giving the key phase "Sebby Frazer" that takes you to it. The source is

6230:

a lower standard than notability, it normally is. Yes a really poorly-written article about a notable person might be validly deleted under A7, that is not the common case. And I will add that if an editor

355:

Because (in at least most cases) it's none of a typo, misnomer or created in error and a redirect from a correct identifier the subject of that identifier is not implausible - the consensus is they are not

6447:

As an aside, keeping Lera Loeb at AfD was a clear mistake. Single worst AfD I've ever been a part of, none of the sources are at all independent of the subject and the subject IMO should still qualify for

3003:

that. To the extent that DraftSpace is justified in existing, it exists for leasurely drafting by IPs. One week is way too short to expect them to be checking in. 6 months is OK. that's why G13 is six

8303:"applies to categories that have been unpopulated for at least seven days". How is that determined? Where do we find the history of how and when a cat was (de)populated? Sorry if this is a dumb question, 1614: 1554: 4248: 5831:, instruct us to fix problems by editing if possible. Doing a quick Google search whether the subject is potentially important or significant (or indeed notable) is imho part of that approach. Regards 2427:

just delete them if they're flagged stale and nobody claims them? I could get behind that, it would remove a lot of administrative confusion about process, and I think address Hasteur's concern above.

5578:

multiple dedicated sources - and otherwise satisfies the A7 criteria is eligible for A7 deletion, notable or not. Yes, one can rewrite such an article rather than delete it, but deletion is allowed.

4398:

by a sock of the same editor, after which the revision history of the earlier version (the draft) was histmerged to that page, with the result that the master rather than the sock showed as creator.

1763:

is another example of a redirect that could fall under this new criterion. A new CSD will keep these possibilities open, and save tedious !votes at RfD. Fiamh and Rosguill raise good points as well.

1434: 3119:, which was started at an edit-a-thon this week. When I work with new editors, either at an edit-a-thon/editing workshop, or at the Teahouse or other on-wiki venues, i normally advise them to start 2712:

A draft PROD is the simplest solution, and vastly preferable to the current system where drafts are robotically deleted based on no other factor than that the author gave up on it six months ago. –

4931:

substantially identical to the deleted version. I know that G4 taggings often are done w/o checking whether the new version is the same as the new one, but this doesn't appear to be the case here.

6020:

A7 is so widely misunderstood in WP, that it is even worth having clear examples of what are, and what are not, A7s. If this thread shows nothing else, it is that there is even confusion over the

4643:

I agree with it being best practice in general is not to act on your own tagging. I would support language to that effect but not for reasons outlined by David making it required by policy. Best,

4690:

It is allowed and should stay allowed. For some CSDs it is not good practice (especially A7), but things like cleaning up after vandals or blocked NOTHERE editors do not require a second admin. —

3055:". It is sufficient that an occasionally checking-in IP uses draftspace for it to be unreasonable that drafts can be deleted with just a week's notice, no discussion, not objective criteria. -- 1874:

Yep, all of those ideas will work too. Of course, blacklisting might cause the WD botops to come over here and complain loudly and at great length. But we can deal with that when and if they do.

1619: 1609: 6278:, which was obviously wrong.) But a very little research using the info already in the article was enough to clearly establish notability, and indeed to get a later version accepted by DYK. See 5998:

But if my wording is not right – then clarify the wording that is absolutely right (because there is not alignment even on this thread on the definition). Think about it, you are talking about

3685:

To be clear, the full criteria on Commons is unused personal photos by non contributors. It's basically a criteria for the person who uploads 10 selfies to go along with their A7 autobiography.

2336: 8209:

Do reposts of categories that were merged per CFD discussions apply under G4? I've seen a few nominations treating them as eligible, even though this does not seem to ever have been clarified.

3011:

cases. There is no case here. I suggest you spend more time at MfD before suggesting this relief valve for drafts at MfD. Currently, MfD receives masses of Portals, so you might like to try

6282:

where discussion lasted less than 6 hours. (yes I know a song is in scope for A9, not A7, and this failed the clause about an article bout the writer, but its a good example anyway, I think.)

2257:

I think this was discussed above in the topic called G13 Question. The consensus there was the G13 criteria is still applicable after surviving a XfD and has been added to the policy already.

7950:

article about a company, product, band, group, author, event, country, visitor attraction or anything else that can be promoted is promotional - a point that multiple other people have made.

4891: 247:

Please can we keep the discussion on target and avoid irrelevant personal opinions about the perceived quality and/or usefulness of Wikidata, they will only hinder forming a consensus here.

1474: 6363: 5015: 4946: 1344: 111: 5944:

I could go into a great big rant about A7, but I won't. I will say this though: A7 is nigh-on impossible to "understand" as it's currently written (believe me, I've tried), for it's far

3375:

Just because a draft survives a MfD doesn't mean it shouldn't be deleted if it becomes stale. In response to the support !voter above, that's a separate discussion, but I like the idea.

2778:

G13 applies uncontestably. I applies when it is uncontestable that anyone has contested it's deletion in the last six months. For a rare case of someone who wants to auto-contest, see

1759:, YouTube IDs, or other unambiguous database identifiers that could make implausible redirects (barring exceptional instances of usage). I'm not sure how common these redirects are, but 5555:

Might do that as well Cryptic, however, per comments above and below, I think it is worth clarifying here that previous valid A7s, can return to become non-valid A7s due to an improved

5513: 1339: 1314: 201: 8328: 4800:

I've always considered it to be the unspoken rule, that deletions that could possibly be refuted on the talk page, should not be done only by one admin. A7 isn't about notability (and

1672: 1424: 7325:

fan and I wanted people to know about this book which did not have an article at the time). As long as they do so following our policies, it will end up improving Knowledge. Regards

4472: 1489: 1319: 8507:

is a legal policy, those are usually heavily locked down and there are limits to what can be changed because they have to be approved by actual lawyers. None of that applies here.

4547: 3584: 3620: 3437:, in many cases I've seen, an AfD/MfD closed as "keep" was because someone has said that the article can be moved to or retained as a draft and be fixed. If that doesn't actually 1634: 1589: 8378: 8363: 4532: 1795: 7457:

that example isn't a G11. It is an A7 however. I'm not sure there is a problem here that needs fixing. Do you have other examples that don't fall under an existent criteria?

6626: 5443: 3429: 1584: 1409: 1374: 8403: 6760: 6089: 5623: 5536: 4510: 4432: 2348: 8454:

How come criteria for speedy deletion is on 30/500? Was it vandalized under semi, or what? And if it is vandalized so much, why not put it on template or full protection like

6976: 5587: 4940: 4414: 3747: 1947: 1469: 1454: 1414: 1399: 1334: 1276: 6882: 6721: 6690: 6656: 6037: 5655: 5640: 5354: 5339: 5197: 5182: 4812:, so giving the author the chance to say "oh wait, I forgot this bit of info" will help the article out a lot more than an admin reading it and then immediately deleting it. 3593:

Would support, under the condition that it must be given a grace period (seven days?) to be used before it's deleted. Still want to keep used personal photos for user pages.

2363: 2319: 2252: 1836: 8133:

G11 is for blatent promotion. If you want to create a new CSD for "Articles designed to let people know about a non-notable subject", that would be a separate discussion. --

7317:

they are knowledgeable about. Oftentimes, these will also be subjects they care about and wish for more people to know about (for example, my first article back in 2004 was

6175:

Yes, and I think this discussion is at cross-purposes; in this example, if I came across a mainspace article saying "Fred Bloggs is a 14 year old student from Nowhereville"

5823:, you think it should be eligible for A7? That does not sound right to me. Yes, A7 is mostly about the claims made in the article but speedy deletion is part of the overall 5325: 4405:? Always, under certain conditions, or never? Question 2: is this already covered by policy somewhere? – in which case please direct me there and ignore question 1. Thanks, 3637: 3603: 3346:

I apologize, I think I meant to comment this on a seperate thread. As for notifications, I did not get one until my draft had already been deleted by G13. Had to go through

1559: 1544: 1519: 1464: 1444: 1369: 1364: 406:

per my initial comments, I'm going to oppose as while they should normally be deleted there are enough caveats and they don't occur often enough to justify speedy deletion.

7765: 7747: 6791: 6587: 6546: 6055: 5802: 5691: 5676: 5427: 5393: 5249: 5001: 3867:

Files uploaded for exclusive use on a deleted page and that have no other conceivable encyclopedic purpose (e.g. self portraits of users whose user pages where deleted via

3451: 3394: 2628: 2039: 1821: 1772: 6319:

I think that the above discussion shows the need to clarify the wording of A7 given the non-alignment; how about a wording like this to "bridge" the gap, and give clarity:

5568: 5550: 5090: 5064: 4222: 4196: 4182: 3880:

After all, Commons' F10 is more like our U5, so stuff uploaded for use on such deleted pages "depends" on these pages in the same way as the other cases of G8 do. Regards

3192: 2584: 2557: 2410: 1624: 1549: 6769:

I agree there is a lot of verbiage; anyway, I did a bit more spelunking into Knowledge history and I think the trigger action for bringing A7 into existence can be found

6257: 5455: 4994: 4318: 3806: 3567: 3542: 3234: 2092: 2078: 7360: 6524: 6388: 6107: 6011: 5753: 5736: 5708: 5228: 5213: 5045: 5023: 4961: 3839: 3768: 3470: 3312: 3256: 2646: 2605: 2438: 2387: 2018: 1649: 1604: 1599: 1569: 1539: 1534: 1494: 1484: 1459: 1449: 1384: 1349: 105: 8175: 7990: 7959: 7937: 7869: 7852: 7591: 7092:

BOLD change here, I'm not sure why this would be restricted only to certain things. Feel free to flip back (with some hint as to why) and I'll open a discussion on talk

6810: 6490: 6471: 6452:(except for the fact it doesn't, since it passed an AfD.) I probably screwed up by assuming the lack of notability was obvious on its face in the nom, but here we are. 6310: 5978: 5110: 4976: 4681: 4666: 4612:

By policy, it is definitely not required, although deleting admins "should" notify the creator and any substantial contributors. Whether it's a good idea ... depends.

3719: 3107: 3081: 3064: 3046: 3027: 2994: 2977: 2949: 2111: 455: 415: 8538: 8125: 8086: 8067: 8049: 8032: 8018: 7645: 7628: 7613: 7392: 7168: 7029:

However, "promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.

6205: 6154: 6138: 5931: 5888: 5864: 5842: 5310: 5202:

The sock has to have been unblocked to create an article, no? Because blocked editors cannot create articles. So it would actually be more confusing that way. Regards

5036:

pressing one button rather than two - but the rather lengthier process of content creation: we're always happy to bin that. They're only volunteers: serves 'em right.

4835: 4638: 4348:

appear as WP:Orphan articles on multiple Knowledge’s, eg for a job hunting recent postgrad graduate, and collectively it may be obvious that all are promotion/spam. —

3701: 3363: 3334: 3293: 3143: 2484: 2463: 2132: 1629: 1594: 1564: 1529: 1514: 1499: 1479: 1354: 474: 7729: 7497: 7287: 7246: 7227: 7207: 7188: 6293: 5409: 5051: 4454: 4357: 4163: 3488: 3276: 2292: 1988: 1965: 1689: 505: 8286: 8265: 8160: 8146: 7918: 7893: 6847: 6827: 6369:

You are still using "notability" as the standard the claim must meet. It's not what A7 is about and never has been. A7 was - from the day it was added to the policy

6189: 5128: 4371: 4342: 2680: 2269: 1938: 1786: 1741: 1727: 1439: 8151:

I believe that has been the gist of previous WT:CSD discussions for extending A7 and A11 to draftspace, to which some answered that this would overlap with G11. --

7820: 7801: 7782: 7709: 7694: 7683:

Really? What exactly has given you the impression G11 cares about notability? It can't have been the wording that includes no mention of notability at all. Regards

7678: 7664: 7466: 7336: 7304: 4652: 4601: 4260: 4241: 4144: 4084: 4069: 4052: 4001: 3777: 3680: 3659: 2906: 2885: 2870: 2791: 2771: 2746: 2728: 2707: 495: 373: 350: 6711:, and that's what the policy was created for. If an article's not in the same ballpark as a high school teacher, it might not be what A7 was trying to get rid of. 5993: 5461: 4860: 4784: 4020: 3964: 3217: 3174:

I think you misread something I wrote, Smokey. I didn't say I didn't care about IP editors in draftspace. I do. A lot. I said protecting them from deletion wasn't

1859: 1639: 1579: 1574: 1524: 1509: 1429: 1419: 1329: 312: 293: 274: 256: 223: 8499: 8192: 7011: 6924: 6170: 4912:

At the very least, G4 deletions long after an original AfD should be tagged and discussed, maybe a week, rather than simply actioned immediately, without notice.

4876: 4721: 4117: 4100: 3983: 3940: 3927: 3910: 2849: 1919: 1807: 1703: 8517: 8218: 7443: 7413: 1887: 1869: 1504: 1404: 1309: 7484: 6667: 6442: 6424: 6407: 5902: 5697:

10-subscriber-YouTube channel etc.. Anything that can clear this barrier should be taken to the community to discuss, not be decided by a single admin. Regards

4759: 4738: 4705: 4621: 5295: 5019:

average afd discussion has to be relisted for two or three weeks in order to secure consensus either way, rather than the five days that used to be the norm. —

3527: 3095: 2779: 2327: 396: 279:

This discussion is not about whether WD-based redirects are good or bad idea or not. There is already a consensus that redirects that use Wikidata identifiers

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4568: 4421:

non-eligible revision. Anything else would logically lead to a page becoming eligible for G5 because a user was later banned which G5 does not allow. Regards

2821: 2063: 261:

I disagree; I think an objective evaluation of Wikidata's reliability and usefulness will help in deciding whether WD-based redirects are a good idea or not.

242: 7493:

Strictly speaking, the sentence is redundant. But if removing it would cause more people to mistag drafts like SmokeyJoe's example, that'd clearly be bad. —

6043: 2567:. Trivially objective. Preferably, authors of pages eligible for G13 will be advised by a bot prior to the deletion; failing that, on deletion, the author 7928:. Sebby was doing native advertising. The world has grasped Knowledge's NPOV writing style, and native advertising is the modern style of advertising. -- 6665:(ec) I had not read that guide before but found it very interesting (and honest re the potential confusion on "significant" etc.); the guide's core test of 5157:

they were blocked on 31 Dec; however, the master, AuthorWiki99, was blocked earlier on July 8. Should we clarify this by adding a bullet under G5? Thanks.

8003: 7943: 7753: 7125: 6940: 6935: 5166: 4921: 4523:

This discussion is way beyond me. May I suggest that since speedy deletion is only for "the most obvious cases" it does not and cannot apply in this case?

3664:

I think that would be too vague. "Other useful purpose" is not an objective criterion by any stretch and someone might use it to just delete everything in

1644: 6890: 8467: 7979: 7880:

But those examples do not describe their subject from a neutral point of view. That's a bit different than the Sebby Frazer example, which is neutral. --

6478: 5291: 5287: 5286:) has now been blocked as a sockpuppet of Hopeful2014. Therefore, any pages created by Lordrenthefirst either before or after they were blocked (such as 4289: 1760: 7084:

2014 Jul: "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion"

6912: 6046:

that (supposedly; I sometimes think it contradicts consensus, given my experience) have been identified as significant, if you haven't already read it.

4804:

mentioned a log summary with "notability not asserted"), it's about a claim of significance. No sources are required and the claim could be as basic as

4383: 3891: 8312: 7524:"Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language". That's behind the times. "Sales-oriented language" is passe. The modern style is 4950: 4484:

The question was about G5 eligibility only. If another criterion applies to the non-G5-eligible parts, then that's okay and that criterion can be used.

3246:

and in AfC we have decline (leave reasons/what is needed) or reject. In addition, G13 drafts are checked by admin prior deletion and can always get a

1359: 6128:

because I've done a fair bit of article writing (even if I do say so myself) I find adding references to just about any biography a trivial exercise?

3284:. A draft that is kept on promise of improvement should still be deleted if abandoned, especially since WP:REFUND is not a difficult process to use. – 6374: 1379: 4299:

No, each project has their own separate notability guidelines, and what may be notable here may not be on the German-language wiki, and vice-versa.

2826:

Any editor in good standing who thinks a draft shows promise should do one of the following: (1) Work on it; or (2) remove it from draftspace, per

8383:

I just check that the category is currently empty and has been tagged for at least seven days, then delete it (AFAIK the category only shows up in

7566:. Often, it is a like this, a child, promoting something childish. Childish promotion should not be discouraged less than professional promotion. 1389: 1324: 5153:(although not a G5 as others edited, and it even went to AfD and was a Keep). In this case, the sock UncleScrooze, created the article on Dec 12 1927:

Too complex, and not frequent enough for a new CSD, or an admendment to say R3. Leave this at RfD, or use the blacklist, or some other mechanism.

6703:

a policy was created tends to be lost in the midst of time, leading to people acting on policy "because it's policy" - which I might describe as

5269: 4232:

I am enjoying the serial release of this comment. What twists and turns will it take next? I anxiously wait by my watchlist to find out :) Best,

7839:

benefit of deleting them sooner than 6 months after the last edit. I don't have a proposed wording yet that would meet all the requirements of

7137:

re-used. It should not be excluded from G11 on the basis of it being "neutral" promotion. Neutral promotion is a recent trend, also known as

6279: 5869:

I disagree. A1 would not be applicable if the context can be inferred from the article's title. G12 requires deletion for legal reasons. G5 is

4323: 4285: 2940:

so why does a new type of proposed deletion (which would join BLPPROD) need to meet the criteria for speedy deletion? What am I missing? Best,

7978:

known in (again iirc) the UK and/or Australia. The deletions were all speedily overturned at DRV (I closed at least one mass nomination there

8002:

and unabigiously promote something or someone. Merely enabling a reader to find a web page or a youtube channel is not blatant promotion. If

6815:

This is incorrect. There was no previous criterion for bands, and A7 was not expanded beyond use for single persons for nearly five months (

6395: 6642:; the "could anybody possibly improve this?" question was an obvious "yes" in that instance. Another good example from my own experience is 6570:

view. CSD's generally depend on what is in the article, althoguh G12 is a spacial case. Note that A1 already mentions a web search, saying:

4210: 3123:

new articles in draft space. When I restore a deleted article on the plea that an editor wishes to improve it to readiness for mainspace, I

7830: 7789: 7741:

per various above. This could be the basis of a better article. Granted, as it stands now, it would be an easy A7 if moved out of Draft. --

6948: 6941: 6898: 6635: 3827: 3012: 7942:

I don't understand why you are persisting with this line of thinking when pretty much everybody else in this discussion has told you that

6598:

Based on my work at NPP, I'm of the opinion A7s should be relatively rare in practice, and they should be obvious on their face. Adding a

3932:"Article" doesn't currently carry much meaning in F5 - it's implicit for nonfree files, which can't be validly used in nonarticles. (The 2473:

nominated at MfD attracts comments in the form of "none of this matters, it's fine to sit there until G13 applies". I would support that.

8224:

Short answer: If it will not be controversial/if it's an obvious no-brainer, just do it. Otherwise go slow or even do a full-blown CFD.

6179:

a Google News search for "fred bloggs nowhereville" returned nothing significant whatsoever, then of course it should be deleted per A7.

4711:

deletion is supposed to be speedy and doesn't necessarily give any time for the creator to contest it, that's what AfD and PROD are for.

3179:

presumption goes to saving content rather than deleting it. If there are BLP or COPYVIO issues well we can deal with those - and do - in

2526:. Draft deletion reasons do not include notability, although notability is an important factor to consider alongside an actual reason. 2512: 47: 17: 1737:, not relying on somebody noticing them and manually tagging them for deletion, and then having an administrator manually delete them. — 7636:, It depends on how the product description is put on the article. If the article is written in an encyclopaedic tone, it's not a G11. 7064:

2007 Jan: "Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.

3845: 2173:

in a delete. I therefore propose the following modification to CSD:G13 to establish if there is a consensus for that interpretation.

447:

I think this will cover only things we definitely want deleted and anything that needs subjective interpretation will be sent to RFD.

6816: 4805: 4729:(which I read to mean as invoking A7) without the article having been CSD tagged at all, by anyone, including by the deleting admin. 7095: 6820: 4206: 3773:

I'm American, and interpret "personal photo" the same way you do. "Unused photo of a person or persons" eliminates the ambiguity. —

6370: 5966: 3425: 5050:

Andy, I'm guessing this wasn't the response you'd been hoping for when you posted your question. However, did you see the section

2454:, that we discount the previous promises and let CSD:G13 process handle it without this rigmarole of evaluating the previous MFD. 2306: 5149:

the individual sock was blocked, that G5 could apply (assuming all other criteria are met)? This is an example of what I mean at

3548: 2890:

I'd be more than happy with that solution too. But as long as we must have draftspace, let's make it work as well as possible. –

2305:

The policy does allow G13 deletions of pages which have survived deletion discussions, but it didn't until very recently, it was

6534:

I am not sure many contemporany editors (and admins), make the distinction between "importance or significance" and "notability"

2812:, during which any editor may remove the tag if they think the draft has potential and kick G13 down the road another 6 months. 8433: 3547:

Looking into it, I guess it's only been a criteria on Commons since July 2018. I've just gotten used to it. But something like

5605:

is debated (irrespective of whether the article establishes this notability), A7 is only focused on whether the article makes

3626:

pages that are eligible for U5 deletion and that serve no other encyclopedic purpose? Kind of like G8 in that regard. Regards

2450:

What I'm saying is that if the draft is kept with a promise that it'll be improved to the point of being ready for mainspace,

6982:

G11. Remove "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

5283: 4377: 3441:, draft space is still not for things to sit around indefinitely. If someone later wants to work on it, doing so is a simple 2219: 8204: 7112:

2020 Jan: "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

7109:

2018 Jul: "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

7106:

2016 Jul: "Note: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

7103:

2014 Dec: "Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion."

6565:

BEFORE in AfDs, and it is certainly better for taggers or deleting admins to do a quick search before taggign or deleting,

6159:

To be fair, I think there is a difference between doing a 15 seconds Google search and a full BEFORE, isn't there? Regards

5470:

true though. A7 is neither higher nor lower taken as a whole; it's merely qualitatively different, as A7 concerns both the

4553: 2617:- the only change I will support to G13 is complete deprecation and removing it from the list of speedy deletion criteria. 2167:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4945:

Not only "substantially identical" in that it was still a list of code snippets that still had the same problems cited in

3498:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8504: 8455: 6621: 6466: 4313: 4281: 3742: 3608:

We already have file PROD which has a seven day wait. The whole point of this would be to expedite that specifically for

3389: 189: 7074:

2010 Jul: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

7071:

2008 Jul: "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

6918: 4131:

said, to ensure it wouldn't harm the wiki. Overall, it would probably make it easier to deal with any files like this.

2012: 6990:: Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion." from G11. 5559:

via better referencing and/or claims in content, even though they may still not have have the notability to pass AfD.

5014:

notice on the talk page placed by AnomieBOT. This struck me not as a test to see whether the very solid consensus at

4362:

No. As others have stated, different Wikipedias have different standards for what should be kept and what should not.

532: 7669:

G11 is blind to WP:Notability? That was unexpected, but I can accept it. Do you think it should be kept at MfD? --

5628: 5265: 5173:

substantial edits by others. That seems clear enough to me and I do not think an extra bullet point is necessary. --

4150: 3815: 3665: 3573: 1256: 969: 873: 5984:

abusive tagging or admins who apply criteria incorrectly. All we can do is educate...or sanction when appropriate.--

4170: 763: 6836:. My memory was in error. I should have double checked before posting a comment on the matter here. Comment struck 6789: 6719: 6654: 6187: 6136: 3303:. I use draftspace, and I would've liked a notification before, not after, my draft had been deleted as abandoned. 2840:

for draftspace drafts, tagged by an editor who takes no personal interest in what they tag, has not worked out. --

2623: 2600: 2479: 2433: 2139:

Clarification Request: The outcome of the most recent XfD being "keep" excludes any page otherwise eligible for G13

2045: 7376:

Sebby Frazer is a YouTuber who currently has 23 subscribers and is a small YouTuber who does lots of Sport videos.

7132:

Sebby Frazer is a YouTuber who currently has 23 subscribers and is a small YouTuber who does lots of Sport videos.

7052:. Pages that exist only to promote a company, person, product, service or group." (the early G11, in its entirety) 6798:

of significance by anyone's standards. I think the separate concept of "significance" arose first in that context.

5074:

nominations were "too many reasons" and "certainly not notable" and the closer didn't even bother giving a reason.

3037:

continue to see differently but I feel like I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from. Best,

2030:, and because the previous RfD discussion would seem to qualify them for the existing criterion G6, housekeeping. 8374: 8308: 7019: 6774: 4827: 4593: 4468: 4410: 4127:

as a U5 extension. The criterion would have to mention that the file would not be able to be used on Commons, as

2553: 2452:

and that improvement doesn't manifest in the form of any edits in 6 months or promotion to mainspace in that time

1303: 1137: 907: 686: 1235: 1088: 8120: 8081: 8044: 8013: 7981:). Removing it would allow the same to happen again, even though that it is clearly not the proposer's intent. 7222: 7183: 6907: 6842: 6805: 6671:, is why as I said above, I usually do a mini-BEFORE before tagging as A7 (and I think I am not alone in that). 6582: 6305: 6288: 6252: 5388: 5244: 4855: 4578:

can this be done. An admin should never delete an article under A7 or similar without someone else tagging it.

3959: 3801: 3502: 3138: 2737:

and should be rejected for that reason alone. G13 applies with no editor required to tag it ahead of time. --

2287: 2264: 2127: 1933: 1289: 1228: 1109: 756: 8277:

There is no specific category that I'm considering nominating; I just want this clarified for future editors.

7368:

What you're proposing is, in essence, a redefinition of G11. G11 doesn't simply mean 'Advertising'; it means '

5667:

You expect newer editors read and understand that wall of text though? History has shown that they rarely do.

4106:

page. For other files, FilePROD should work or at least there is no reason to assume that it doesn't. Regards

1179: 665: 141:

The redirect is not otherwise a useful search term for the target and does not contain any significant history

8357: 8259: 3325:

months unedited that the draft could be in danger of G13, but that's not in scope of this RFC/Clarification.

1664:

for a variant of this list including non-redirects (nothing problematic there that's not in the list above);

1296: 887: 832: 812: 3403:

they've looked at the XfD in question, and seen a consensus to retain the material on its merits. Remember

2538:

first if it fits). Resubmission of a draft without improvement is a reason explicitly approved by an RfC.

1249: 1200: 1186: 1060: 1032: 990: 983: 934: 838: 679: 574: 8413: 6971: 5727:

You are facing an ArbCom case on issues of A7, and I am not sure that all our interpretations are aligned?

4173:, G6 said it applied to disambig pages disambigging one or fewer pages for at least two years before that. 3617: 3581: 1282: 1221: 1144: 962: 866: 852: 777: 735: 651: 539: 7060:" clause appears early, dissimilar to the current wording. Regular snapshots of the G11 Note clause are: 5786:

guidance, but rather for seeing if there was a better way to word the existing guidance to be more clear.

1270: 1263: 1214: 1207: 1193: 1158: 798: 644: 609: 8399: 7027:

Any article that describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion.

6734:

This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability,

6262:

As a more plausible example of a poorly written article that might have been delete3d under A7, consider

5519:

This is a good point. I have seen editors at AfD confuse it with A7 (obviously, at AfD, the issue is the

4755: 4701: 4169:

Randomly sampling this history, G14 has always said one or fewer articles since it was separated from G6

2050:

There is various speedy criteria deletion for "unremarkable X". Think project could benefit from another

1915: 1172: 1165: 1151: 997: 920: 826: 805: 714: 693: 672: 658: 616: 5815:), no matter how bad the article is. In your hypothetical scenario, if someone started an article named 4773:

I'll admit I'm not an expert on every nuance of CSD policy, but I've never seen anything that supports,

1130: 1081: 1046: 880: 845: 819: 791: 770: 700: 623: 588: 486:, not frequent enough. A single RfD batch can take care of all outstanding redirects once identified. -- 8370: 8335: 8304: 5592:

How about deleting the clause "a lower standard of notability", and replacing with a sentence that says

4882: 4489: 4464: 4406: 1242: 1053: 1025: 1011: 941: 927: 901: 784: 728: 637: 334: 38: 7434:

does it say that autobios are automatic G11s. G11 is about content, not intent (perceived or proven).

6901:, where allegedly improper speedy deletions, particularly A7s, seem likely to be a significant issue. 5954:). It's no use just moaning that "A7 abuse" is so rampant (I was once branded an abuser for trying to 3461:

certain Administrators who have chosen to substitute their beliefs for the objective criteria of G13.

1039: 859: 749: 742: 707: 581: 560: 8458:, where the talk page is also semi protected until the morning of March 8, 2021? I am just confused. 6770: 5875:

Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.

5824: 5277: 2280:, I wonder if it is possible to limit G13 to AFC Submissions which have not been actually submitted? 2035: 1817: 1768: 1756: 553: 6328:

1. The references AND/OR the text in the body should not contain a credible claim of notability per

6076:; I think we should answer this, because if it doesn't, AND, there is essential disagreement on the 955: 630: 7378:

is far from unambiguous advertising, regardless of who wrote it. Anything written in a NPOV is not

6880: 6758: 6686: 6520: 6359: 6085: 6033: 6007: 5929: 5862: 5800: 5732: 5687: 5651: 5619: 5564: 5532: 5511: 5423: 5350: 5321: 5224: 5193: 5162: 5136: 4809: 3699: 3565: 3525: 2834: 2398: 2203: 1734: 1668:

for the non-mainspace ones (which I'm not bothered by, though I guess some other folks might be). —

379:

Besides, if the problem ever comes up, we can later expand R5 to include things like eg academics'

5807:

Imho, a notable subject can only be A7ed by mistake. If the subject's notability is determinable,

602: 595: 8429: 8324: 7742: 7619:

description out there on Knowledge is not G11-eligible. That's what you think G11 should be? --

7521:

You really think he is not trying to promote? The obvious intent is to attract more subscribers.

6732:

Well this is a lot of words. To be honest, I was just thinking along the lines of something like

6643: 6613: 6458: 5583: 4936: 4662: 4305: 4187:

Eight years ago, it said "unnecessary disambiguation pages", without specifying what that meant.

3734: 3613: 3577: 3420: 3381: 2193: 6704: 6668:

could any independent editor reasonably improve this article so it would not be deleted at AfD?

5086: 5041: 5008: 4917: 4634: 4395: 4391: 4387: 3408: 3351: 2527: 2151: 2008: 721: 7344:

per the above. The example given is not a valid G11 in my book with or without this sentence.

4559:

and having a chance to contest such a nomination prior to the article being deleted.) Thanks,

4331:

that it was deleted here, but rather that it doesn't comply with notability guidelines there.

2964:

BLPPROD? I am perfectly happy for BLPPROD to be extended to draftspace, if it is not already.

1812:

I think that we should just have a slight amendment to R3 to cope with this kind of deletion.

7597:

Challenge question: Can you paraphrase G11 sentences 3 and 4 in your own objective language?

7157:

promotional source, and our CSD criteria should thus be able to be applied in this scenario.

7077:

2012 Jul: "Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a

6125: 5330:

Is there any evidence of a real problem here or is it a hypothetical or perceived problem? --

5259: 4450: 4159: 3823: 3600: 3230: 2549: 2469:

I've suggested before). Doing so would seem to support current practice where any draft that

2074: 153:

prevent the speedy deletion of cases that are not clear cut, for which discussion is needed.

8110: 7273:

does say that spam articles (as opposed to linkspam) typically contain promotional wording:

6338:, should not throw up any other easily accessible references that could show notability per 6263: 2854:

Those are workarounds, not a good system that improves collaboration and article quality. –

1123: 1074: 894: 7515: 7356: 7015: 6787: 6717: 6652: 6185: 6134: 5636: 5335: 5273: 5178: 4775:

An admin should never delete an article under A7 or similar without someone else tagging it

3359: 3308: 3243: 3201: 3007:"Deletion of drafts no one cares about" is a contradiction. Someone has to care to tag it. 2661: 2541: 2354:

Procedural edit to keep this from being archived while waiting for the formal RFC closure.

2031: 1813: 1764: 976: 567: 546: 171: 6299:

and this language reminds editors of that, and can be pointed to when people forget that.

6002:

for a rule that is not clear to make them understand it better? How does that make sense?

5316:

would clarify things for non-SPI experienced editors on the relevant block date to check?

1794:. I started an RfD to take care of the redirects that currently exist. You may find it at 1102: 948: 138:

previous titles have been deleted or would meet this or another speedy deletion criterion)

8: 8534: 8171: 8156: 8063: 8028: 7986: 7955: 7933: 7914: 7865: 7848: 7797: 7761: 7674: 7624: 7587: 7146: 6682: 6529: 6516: 6355: 6081: 6029: 6003: 5728: 5683: 5647: 5615: 5560: 5528: 5419: 5346: 5317: 5306: 5234: 5220: 5189: 5158: 5124: 5060: 4821: 4648: 4587: 4543: 4442: 4353: 4237: 4080: 4048: 3997: 3655: 3507:

Is there a reason en.wiki doesn't have a SD file criteria for unused personal photos, as

3484: 3404: 3188: 3116: 3103: 3077: 3060: 3042: 3023: 2990: 2973: 2945: 2881: 2845: 2787: 2742: 2703: 2642: 2580: 2406: 2344: 2107: 2088: 2059: 1984: 1961: 1832: 1685: 1095: 451: 411: 369: 308: 289: 252: 197: 7400:, that's an A7, unless the creator is clearly the subject in which case it's also a G11 4496:"A page is eligible for speedy deletion only if all of its revisions are also eligible." 4247:

I was planning to give up, but I dug around more, and it seems the discussion was here:

1004: 913: 8463: 8320: 8282: 8214: 8118: 8079: 8042: 8011: 7925: 7641: 7609: 7525: 7439: 7388: 7220: 7181: 7138: 6952: 6905: 6840: 6803: 6608: 6580: 6542: 6453: 6303: 6286: 6250: 6051: 6021: 5974: 5950:

too subjective and open to interpretation (speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be

5828: 5816: 5812: 5780: 5672: 5662: 5579: 5542: 5494: 5406: 5386: 5242: 4991: 4932: 4853: 4781: 4658: 4367: 4300: 4016: 3957: 3799: 3729: 3538: 3446: 3376: 3289: 3136: 2125: 1931: 1116: 1067: 525: 185: 3225:: does not take into account that the draft may have been abandoned after discussion. 3115:, I, an active Knowledge, do all my drafting in Draftspace. I am currently working on 1018: 8353: 8342: 8255: 7807: 7547: 7431: 6867: 6745: 6025: 5916: 5849: 5787: 5498: 5082: 5037: 4913: 4887:

Should the threat of a potential G4 deletion remain hanging over an article forever?

4630: 4528: 3835: 3764: 3686: 3552: 3512: 3466: 3330: 3266: 2459: 2383: 2359: 2248: 2227: 2147: 2004: 1948:

MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist#Request to prevent "Wikidata" titles from being created

1665: 1661: 6646:, which on first inspection looks superficially rubbish but was clearly improvable. 2069:

Been discussed and rejected many times, it would overload CSD and bite newbies, imv

8526: 8138: 8106: 7885: 7840: 6965: 6778: 6599: 6594: 6566: 6335: 6242: 6080:

of my wording, then we are not in a great place regarding the definition of an A7?

6073: 5720: 5451: 5255: 5105: 4973: 4958: 4479: 4446: 4139: 3933: 3755: 3595: 3442: 3347: 3247: 3226: 2929: 2752: 2734: 2572: 2218:

Pages deleted under G13 may be restored upon request by following the procedure at

2180: 2099: 2070: 1946:: I have started a related RfC regarding preventing the creation of such titles at 8488:

Nothing ever good has come out of non-EC editors editing this high end policy page

6925:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy) § Increasing the scope of WP:G5 vis-a-vis socking.

303:

far more likely to occur following a discussion than following a speedy deletion.

112:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 1#Aisa Bint Ahmad (Q30904322)

8395: 7815: 7778: 7704: 7689: 7659: 7479: 7462: 7345: 7331: 7322: 7299: 6860: 6782: 6740:

This would make the second sentence more in line with the first, which specifies

6712: 6678: 6647: 6485: 6437: 6419: 6402: 6383: 6226:

to the proposal as written above, for several reasons. While significance is not

6180: 6165: 6129: 5989: 5898: 5893:

I don't think it's ever a good idea to presume what the "community" will think.--

5883: 5837: 5748: 5703: 5632: 5331: 5208: 5174: 4751: 4734: 4697: 4676: 4616: 4564: 4505: 4427: 4255: 4217: 4191: 4177: 4112: 4064: 3922: 3886: 3675: 3632: 3416: 3355: 3319: 3304: 3251: 2901: 2865: 2804:

looking for is a 7-day grace period between G13 tagging and deletion, similar to

2766: 2723: 2675: 2657: 2618: 2595: 2535: 2522:

appropriate where there is a deletion reason. Deletion reasons mostly come from

2496: 2474: 2445: 2428: 2401:

does not work in attracting editors to help, but the fact is that it doesn't. --

2027: 1911: 345: 6275: 1713: 46:

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

8530: 8495: 8167: 8152: 8072: 8059: 8024: 7982: 7951: 7929: 7910: 7904: 7861: 7857: 7844: 7793: 7757: 7670: 7633: 7620: 7583: 7563: 7270: 7142: 7078: 7048: 7035: 6931: 6639: 6267: 5808: 5299: 5141:

Am I correct in assuming that if a sock of a blocked master creates an article

5120: 5056: 4814: 4768: 4644: 4580: 4539: 4349: 4277: 4276:

English wikipedia for deletion, on the grounds that it clearly did not satisfy

4233: 4133: 4128: 4076: 4044: 3993: 3906:

to have any use on any other valid article" - minus the non-free restriction. —

3819: 3651: 3508: 3480: 3211: 3184: 3112: 3099: 3073: 3069: 3056: 3038: 3019: 2986: 2982: 2969: 2958: 2954: 2941: 2933: 2923: 2877: 2841: 2830:, putting it in their userspace or as a subpage of an interested WikiProject. 2783: 2738: 2699: 2638: 2576: 2545: 2531: 2402: 2340: 2103: 2084: 2055: 1974: 1951: 1881: 1853: 1828: 1681: 460: 448: 407: 390: 365: 304: 285: 268: 248: 236: 217: 193: 159: 6068:

A clear issue/non-alignment from the above discussion is whether an A7 should

5032:

Why is it that every time "efficiency" is raised as a problem, it's to favour

3728:

I support this in principle, but the text needs to be absolutely unambiguous.

1842:

that if we're going to stretch any existing CSD to handle these, it should be

8475: 8459: 8294: 8278: 8210: 8188: 8115: 8076: 8055: 8039: 8008: 7637: 7605: 7435: 7427: 7408: 7397: 7384: 7239: 7232: 7217: 7213: 7200: 7193: 7178: 7173: 7161: 6902: 6837: 6800: 6577: 6538: 6508: 6347: 6300: 6283: 6271: 6247: 6047: 5970: 5870: 5668: 5598: 5439: 5415: 5403: 5383: 5239: 5150: 4988: 4903:

It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version

4850: 4846: 4795: 4778: 4363: 4335: 4271:

Is being deleted on another language's Knowledge grounds for speedy deletion?

4010: 3954: 3796: 3551:

seems to mostly a cross wiki spammer, and these images are entirely useless.

3534: 3412: 3285: 3133: 2937: 2827: 2817: 2523: 2337:

WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 65#Expand G13 to cover ALL old drafts

2281: 2277: 2258: 2213: 2122: 1928: 1781: 1720: 467: 425: 179: 175: 149: 122:- Redirects that contain Wikidata or other database identifiers in the title: 7235:, that's a good point, I'd forgotten that it applies in draftspace as well. 6699:

policy is (or at least know where to educate ourselves), but the history of

4205:

changed the template five years ago from "two or fewer" to "fewer than two"

8510: 8346: 8300: 8272: 8248: 8232: 8228: 7722: 7494: 7313: 7280: 6956: 6923:

Watchers of this page may be interested in the following VPPOL discussion:

6833: 6824: 6695:

Another point hinted at in the essay, is that we are generally clued up on

6449: 6377:

for the details on the discussion that led to the creation of A7). Regards

6198: 6147: 6118: 6100: 5547: 5020: 4873: 4714: 4524: 4438: 4402: 4097: 3976: 3937: 3907: 3868: 3831: 3774: 3760: 3716: 3476: 3462: 3341: 3326: 2809: 2805: 2455: 2379: 2355: 2312: 2244: 2223: 2186: 2051: 1866: 1843: 1738: 1669: 502: 327: 163: 7426:

No, if it's not written in a promotional tone, it's not a G11. Nowhere in

3018:

Do you have some examples of pages that belong in a DraftProd process? --

8134: 7900: 7881: 7141:. Attempting spam in NPOV language should not protect spam from G11. -- 6960: 6512: 6394:

still eligible for A7 deletion. For instance, see the DRV for Lera Loeb

6339: 6329: 5447: 5116: 5102: 4970: 4955: 2928:

I've read you say a few times in these discussions, that DRAFTPROD fails

1997:

and others rightly say, this just isn't common enough to be worth it. ~

1796:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 5#Wikidata redirects

7264:

for a start this is asking us to delete articles on the basis of why we

6413:

that does not mean A7 should have the same requirements as AFD. Regards

4953:, with the only difference being the lack of the  3354:

if you're interested. I struck my support vote since it isn't relevant.

2176:

Any pages that have not been edited by a human in six months found in:

115:

discussion. I therefore propose the following criterion for discussion:

8390: 8023:

Most pages on notable companies do not have zero independent sources. —

7812: 7774: 7701: 7684: 7656: 7476: 7458: 7326: 7296: 7087: 6561: 6504: 6482: 6434: 6414: 6399: 6378: 6160: 5985: 5894: 5878: 5832: 5743: 5713: 5698: 5203: 4801: 4746: 4730: 4692: 4673: 4613: 4560: 4500: 4460: 4422: 4252: 4214: 4188: 4174: 4107: 4059: 4032:(a) the image has only ever been used on the page deleted under CSD#U5; 3917: 3881: 3670: 3644: 3627: 3130:

Active Wikipedians should draft in userspace or in WikiProject subpages

2891: 2855: 2756: 2713: 2694: 2665: 1994: 1906: 1799: 1699: 487: 340: 167: 8491: 7571:

So, if this page should not be speedy deletable, what should be done?

7318: 7018:

and the content could plausibly be replaced with text written from a

6927: 6028:

has the correct current operating interpretation of what an A7 is).

5486: 3205: 3096:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata

2780:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard#Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata

1875: 1847: 384: 262: 230: 211: 8241:

potentially controversial, don't be a slave to G4, discuss it first.

6773:- essentially an IP went round and created an article (this was pre 5016:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Hello world program examples

4947:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Hello world program examples

4009:

per Hut 8.5. Not in G8, maybe a new separate criterion for this? --

2083:

I imagine it would have been discussed before. Thanks for the info.

8183: 7402: 6777:) about every teacher at his school, and was blocked for it. Since 4025:

Support speedy deletion of an image, if all the following are true:

2957:, yes, it is as if people have forgotten the foundation premise of 2813: 5911:

disagreeing? I think we both fairly well understand the rationale

3132:

simply does not cover current practice, nor in my view should it.

2515:. WP:AfC has good DECLINE and REJECT options that should be used. 128:

The identifier unambiguously relates to the target of the redirect

8384: 6993:

This clause in the context of the full wording (other wording in

5081:

use a tag-and-bag approach to such things, but it's pretty rare.

3814:

I think that this will be helpful as it will aid in clearing out

6707:;-) In this case, A7 exists because we had too many articles on 5101:

Didn't I add a deletion tag to that page before it was deleted?

3204:

reasons should not be immune to an otherwise legitimate speedy.

3090:

You don't care about infrequent IP editors? I think you should.

5493:

That's easily A7. But the subject of the article happens to be

5444:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Horton.Hears.A.Hoot/Archive

4983:

I don't see the need for a time limit. The important thing is

4909:

gets rubbed out instantly by one drive-by from a single admin.

2733:

DRAFTPROD amounts to a non-objective speedy deletion, it fails

2335:

Consensus that G13 should cover all drafts was very clear, see

229:

kind of irresponsible sloppiness Wikidata is constantly doing.

8417: 7475:

Because it's in Draft: space, it's not an A7, in the example.

4390:

by a user who was later blocked for socking, and subsequently

2423:

go to MfD? That instead of discussing drafts at all we should

1780:

seems to be a good way of cleaning this type of redirect up --

1709:

Support for some sort of expedited process for these redirects

8101:

Everyone should understand that notability and promotion are

4035:(b) the image was uploaded by the user whose userpage it was; 3572:

I would support this; it would certainly help make a dent in

2146:

Consensus is pretty much unanimously against this proposal -

380: 5219:

apply; but a more experienced editor knows better. Thanks.

4494:"My" interpretation is merely quoting the policy that says 1752: 7829:

When reviewing speedy deletions for the currently ongoing

5960:

the abuse, just so you know); we should instead be asking

3533:

No idea if it's been proposed before, but I'm all for it.

436:

The identifier is not mentioned at the target article; and

4868: 3973:

should be a separate criterion and more narrowly worded.

3795:

by discussion. Is there truly a need for such a new CSD?

2534:-failing topic is a compelling reason (but please try to 8482: 7516:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC841DMVBXw_ZXgZQ2RfFz4A

4657:

I sometimes do it when cleaning up junk filetalk pages.

1846:, which the bot responsible could automatically handle. 4951:

the version of the article from 2015-04-09 00:21:41 UTC

1395:

Dinosaurs! - A Fun-Filled Trip Back in Time! (Q5807481)

442:

The page does not contain any significant edit history.

125:

This applies only where all of the following are true:

6955:

to tag and delete empty categories in accordance with

6781:, the number of genuine A7s has dropped to a trickle. 6507:, I had never seen that, and helps explains your (and 2511:

go to MfD. MfD is not failure management process for

134:

The redirect is not the result of a page move (unless

131:

The identifier is not mentioned at the target article.

7269:

nothing to do with whether something is spam or not.

4574:

Only in edge cases like G3, G10 through G13, U5, etc

3855:

G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page

2571:

be advised. The deletion log MUST contain a link to

7754:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sebby Frazer

2326:

Consensus for G13 was becoming obvious in 2013, see

6479:

Knowledge:Identifying and using independent sources

4538:about whether speedy deletion applies it does not. 4209:, but at that time this page said "fewer than two" 106:

Redirects with database (e.g. Wikidata) identifiers

7034:This clause has no support from G11's "main page" 5188:non-SPI experienced editors to know this? Thanks. 4401:Question: is such a page eligible for deletion as 3183:namespaces now, that's not what G13 is for. Best, 2565:6 months is eligible for deletion under WP:CSD#G13 439:The redirect is not the result of a page move; and 6375:Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/1 6373:- always about "importance or significance" (see 7383:should remain about content rather than intent. 5442:, here's a recent case to illustrate the point, 4213:, I can't recall why I noticed the discrepency. 7010:rewritten to serve as encyclopaedia articles, 5719:Also, A7 is not AfD; while I always do a quick 5270:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Hopeful2014 3826:. There are plenty I nominated for deletion at 2507:go to MfD. More certainly, "bad drafts should 7504:OK, unexpected responses, and some astounding. 6280:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/500 Miles High 5811:already forbids deletion (in combination with 5377:That seems reasonable, so I just boldly added 3242:. Draft should not go to MfD or AfD for it is 2698:1 year is getting too long for zero edits. -- 7574:(a) Nothing, leave for AfC processes and G13? 6396:Knowledge:Deletion_review/Log/2019_November_4 6346:The rationale for A7 is to avoid clogging up 5821:Dave was born in Isleworth and loves animals. 3790:could be properly used. Speedy deletion does 7831:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth 6949:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot 6942:Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/QEDKbot 6899:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth 6636:User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7 3828:Knowledge:Files for discussion/2018 April 21 3013:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion no portals 1827:- i.e. deal with the cause not the symptom. 4954:at the top with instruction for additions. 2513:Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation 2212:Pages that have survived their most recent 18:Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion 6744:, putting the onus on the article itself. 3953:stretching "dependent" much too far, IMO. 2518:For specific details: MfD for a draft is 2328:WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 48 2237:Discussion (G13 eligibility clarification) 1615:Mary Spratt Provoost Alexander (Q55720821) 1555:Harriet Jemima Winifred Clisby (Q24242263) 7528:, advertise without the reader realizing. 4437:I have to disagree with that assessment. 2564:Any page in draftspace unedited for : --> 2121:therefore oppose any such new criterion. 5967:Knowledge:Credible claim of significance 5268:) was blocked just over a year ago, and 4605:(minor ce: 15:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 2210:Redirects are exempt from G13 deletion. 1435:Sophie Friederike Dinglinger (Q18238429) 516:All mainspace redirects containing "(Q#" 156:Pinging participants of the linked RfD: 7042:The clause has evolved over the years. 3902:use was on a deleted article and it is 2637:I too would support this change. Best, 14: 8434:Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion 7998:G11 should be reserved for pages that 5462:A7: "a lower standard than notability" 4927:Problem I see is that the new article 1620:Susan Lincoln Tolman Mills (Q55721423) 1610:Mary Elizabeth Mapes Dodge (Q55720497) 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7946:is not promotion. By your definition 7081:does not qualify for this criterion." 3936:are very narrow, and not relevant.) — 2503:go to MfD". Instead, "drafts should 2369:Votes (G13 eligibility clarification) 2220:Knowledge:Requests for undeletion/G13 2202:Userspace with no content except the 764:French submarine Dupuy de Lôme (Q105) 757:French submarine Dupuy de Lome (Q105) 7128:. Its content, in its entirety, is 6742:any article...that does not indicate 4985:sufficiently/substantially identical 4892:List of Hello world program examples 4282:de: Giovanni Leone (Wissenschaftler) 3087:BLP and copyright infringing drafts. 2936:is a different deletion method than 2163:The following discussion is closed. 25: 8505:Knowledge:Reusing Knowledge content 8456:Knowledge:Reusing Knowledge content 6274:there. (It was actually tagged for 1475:Kiky Gerritsen-Heinsius (Q18655458) 1290:French submarine L'Africaine (Q334) 1110:French submarine L'Africaine (Q196) 190:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Redirect 184:. I'll also leave a note there, at 23: 7752:So you would be !voting "keep" at 4382:An interesting situation arose at 3850:How about modifying G8 like this: 3032:I disagree that draftspace should 1345:Louise of Anhalt-Dessau (Q1876675) 1250:French submarine Triomphant (Q272) 1201:French submarine Inflexible (Q264) 1187:French submarine Redoutable (Q252) 991:French submarine Casablanca (Q183) 984:French submarine Casabianca (Q183) 935:French submarine La Sibylle (Q175) 839:French submarine Redoutable (Q136) 687:French submarine Vendémiaire (Q59) 680:French submarine Vendemiaire (Q59) 533:French submarine Gustave Zédé (Q2) 24: 8550: 7022:, this is preferable to deletion. 7006:promotional and would need to be 4897:G4 is already specific that it's 3816:Category:Knowledge orphaned files 3666:Category:Knowledge orphaned files 3574:Category:Knowledge orphaned files 3511:? Has this been proposed before? 1340:Elizabeth Frances Cope (Q1331196) 1315:Infanta Isabel of Spain (Q167384) 1283:French submarine Africaine (Q334) 1257:French submarine Téméraire (Q273) 1236:French submarine Améthyste (Q269) 1222:French submarine Bourgogne (Q267) 1145:French submarine Argonaute (Q235) 1089:French submarine La Créole (Q193) 970:French submarine Bévéziers (Q179) 963:French submarine Beveziers (Q179) 874:French submarine Prométhée (Q153) 867:French submarine Promethee (Q153) 853:French submarine Turquoise (Q146) 778:French submarine Souffleur (Q116) 736:French submarine Bernouilli (Q83) 8421: 6334:2. A brief, but not exhaustive, 3494:The discussion above is closed. 1425:Valborg Stoud Platou (Q17120135) 1304:French submarine L'Astrée (Q404) 1271:French submarine Terrible (Q281) 1264:French submarine Vigilant (Q274) 1229:French submarine Émeraude (Q268) 1215:French submarine Bretagne (Q266) 1208:French submarine Provence (Q265) 1194:French submarine Ouessant (Q262) 1159:French submarine Eurydice (Q245) 1138:French submarine L'Astrée (Q200) 799:French submarine Marsouin (Q119) 645:French submarine Turquoise (Q46) 610:French submarine Aigrette (Q038) 29: 7834:(only line breaks omitted, see 7509:Hut 8.5. Is G11 about "why we 7002:This applies to pages that are 6705:cargo cult encyclopedia writing 6681:'s essay makes the same point? 6634:I have addressed this issue in 6024:example above (which I believe 5069:Hoping for? The most I'd ever 4810:being the first to do something 2276:With the consistent backlog at 1490:Isabelle de Tessier (Q18819490) 1320:Irene of Thessalonica (Q264096) 1180:French submarine Gymnôte (Q251) 1173:French submarine Gymnote (Q251) 1166:French submarine Minerve (Q248) 1152:French submarine Espadon (Q237) 998:French submarine Minerve (Q185) 921:French submarine Blaison (Q165) 908:French submarine Amazone (Q161) 827:French submarine Espadon (Q129) 806:French submarine Dauphin (Q120) 715:French submarine Foucault (Q70) 694:French submarine Brumaire (Q60) 673:French submarine Priarial (Q55) 666:French submarine Pluviôse (Q51) 659:French submarine Pluviose (Q51) 617:French submarine Aigrette (Q38) 6986:I propose to remove the text " 5601:, where the notability of the 5414:+1 as well - looks good to me 3407:, "WP is not a suicide pact", 3350:. The article is currently at 1635:Kathleen Gallagher (Q57254646) 1590:Alexandra Avierino (Q41300600) 1297:French submarine Astrée (Q404) 1131:French submarine Astree (Q200) 1082:French submarine Creole (Q193) 1047:French submarine Pallas (Q189) 888:French submarine Protée (Q155) 881:French submarine Protee (Q155) 846:French submarine Saphir (Q145) 820:French submarine Phoque (Q128) 813:French submarine Caïman (Q127) 792:French submarine Narval (Q118) 771:French submarine Requin (Q115) 701:French submarine Fresnel (Q65) 624:French submarine Cigogne (Q39) 589:French submarine Dauphin (Q35) 13: 1: 8539:10:03, 27 February 2020 (UTC) 8518:22:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8500:22:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8468:20:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8404:22:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8379:22:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8364:21:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8329:19:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8313:19:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8287:07:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 8266:17:14, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 8219:13:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 6951:, which is a proposal for an 6042:For what it's worth, there's 5129:20:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC) 5111:20:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC) 5091:03:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC) 5065:23:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC) 5046:23:03, 28 December 2019 (UTC) 5024:21:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC) 4995:16:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC) 4977:14:53, 28 December 2019 (UTC) 4962:14:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC) 4941:14:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC) 4922:14:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC) 4877:10:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC) 4861:19:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC) 4836:04:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 4785:20:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4760:19:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4739:19:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4722:19:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4706:19:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4682:05:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 4667:17:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4653:16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4639:16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4622:16:09, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4602:15:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4569:15:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4548:21:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC) 4533:11:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 4511:18:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 4473:11:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 4455:00:44, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 4433:20:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4415:18:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 4378:Does histmerge invalidate G5? 4372:11:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC) 4358:00:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC) 4343:23:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC) 4319:23:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC) 4294:23:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC) 4118:15:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 4101:15:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 4085:12:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 4070:11:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 4053:10:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 4038:(c) the image is of the user. 4021:10:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 4002:10:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 3984:07:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3965:04:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3941:15:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 3928:16:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC) 3911:02:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC) 3892:20:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3840:20:47, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3807:04:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 3778:03:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC) 3769:21:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3748:13:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3720:03:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC) 3702:13:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3681:12:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3660:12:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3638:09:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3621:09:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3604:03:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3585:03:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3568:02:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3543:02:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 3528:02:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 2419:Are you saying drafts should 2364:21:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC) 2216:are exempt from G13 deletion. 2156:23:05, 28 November 2019 (UTC) 2133:16:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC) 2112:22:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 2093:22:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 2079:22:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 2064:21:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC) 2040:21:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC) 2019:19:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC) 1989:16:47, 17 November 2019 (UTC) 1966:15:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC) 1939:07:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC) 1585:Elizabeth Colbert (Q39303159) 1410:Elizabeth Peckham (Q13586553) 1243:French submarine Perle (Q270) 1061:French submarine Céres (Q190) 1054:French submarine Ceres (Q190) 1033:French submarine Vénus (Q187) 1026:French submarine Venus (Q187) 1012:French submarine Junon (Q186) 942:French submarine Bouan (Q176) 928:French submarine Orion (Q165) 902:French submarine Rubis (Q158) 833:French submarine Doris (Q135) 785:French submarine Morse (Q117) 729:French submarine Cugnot (Q76) 638:French submarine Saphir (Q44) 575:French submarine Naïade (Q15) 8205:Reposts of merged categories 8193:23:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 8176:23:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 8161:23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 8147:22:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 8126:22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 8087:23:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 8068:23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 8050:21:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 8033:21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 8019:19:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 7991:10:45, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 7960:00:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7938:23:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 7919:23:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 7894:22:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 7870:23:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 7853:10:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC) 7843:but I am thinking about it. 7821:13:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 7802:00:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC) 7783:23:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7766:05:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7748:04:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7730:07:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7710:08:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7695:08:48, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7679:06:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7665:06:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7646:15:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7629:06:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7614:04:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7592:03:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC) 7498:16:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7485:16:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7467:16:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7444:15:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 7414:14:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC) 7393:16:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7361:10:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7337:08:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7305:07:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7288:07:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7247:17:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7228:17:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7208:16:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7189:14:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC) 7169:07:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 7151:07:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC) 6977:22:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 6936:17:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC) 6913:14:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 6883:22:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC) 6848:15:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 6828:14:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 6811:13:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 6792:12:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 6324:An A7 should meet two tests: 5145:the master was blocked, but 4554:CSD deletion without tagging 4261:16:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 4242:16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 4223:15:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 4197:15:41, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 4183:15:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 4164:15:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC) 4145:14:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 3489:01:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC) 3471:23:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC) 3452:17:14, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 3430:05:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC) 3395:09:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC) 3364:20:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 3335:15:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC) 3313:20:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC) 3294:07:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC) 3277:07:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC) 3257:03:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC) 3235:01:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 3193:13:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 3144:13:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 3108:06:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 3082:05:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 3065:05:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 3047:02:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 3028:02:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 2995:01:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 2978:01:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 2950:01:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC) 2054:for "unremarkable product". 1920:12:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1888:10:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1870:10:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1860:09:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1837:09:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1822:06:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1808:03:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1787:03:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1773:21:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 1742:02:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1728:18:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 1704:18:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 1690:17:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 1673:13:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC) 1470:Elizabeth Knight (Q18593026) 1455:Madeleine McCann (Q18542441) 1415:Rachaniw Bulakul (Q16594437) 1400:Mohammad Salamati (Q5938428) 1375:Ginevra de' Benci (Q3494135) 1335:Agnes Smith Lewis (Q1300112) 1277:The 30th Avenue School(Q300) 1040:French submarine Iris (Q188) 860:French submarine Ajax (Q148) 750:French submarine Curie (Q87) 743:French submarine Joule (Q84) 708:French submarine Monge (Q67) 652:French submarine Circé (Q47) 582:French submarine Alose (Q33) 561:French submarine Follet (Q7) 540:French submarine Sirène (Q2) 506:16:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 496:16:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 475:18:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 456:16:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 416:13:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 397:13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 374:13:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 351:13:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 313:13:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 294:14:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 275:13:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 257:13:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 243:13:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 224:13:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 202:13:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC) 7: 8486:last April with the reason 8480:this page was protected by 8448:to reactivate your request. 8436:has been answered. Set the 6761:20:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6736:as indicated by the article 6722:16:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6691:16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6657:15:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6627:14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6588:13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6547:15:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6525:14:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6491:14:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6472:14:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6443:14:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6425:14:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6408:13:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6389:12:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6364:11:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6311:09:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6294:09:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6258:08:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6206:21:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6190:20:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6171:19:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6155:19:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6139:16:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6108:07:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC) 6090:17:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 6056:17:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 6038:17:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 6012:17:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5994:17:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5979:16:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5932:18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5903:17:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5889:17:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5865:17:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5843:16:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5803:15:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5754:17:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5737:16:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5709:16:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5692:15:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5677:15:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5656:15:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5641:15:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5624:15:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5588:14:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5569:15:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5551:14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5537:13:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5514:13:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5456:13:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC) 5428:19:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC) 5410:19:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC) 5394:19:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC) 5355:00:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC) 5340:23:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 5326:22:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 5311:21:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 5254:Yes. As a current example, 5250:18:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 5229:14:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 5214:14:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 5198:13:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 5183:12:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 5167:12:00, 2 January 2020 (UTC) 3218:13:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2932:. I don't understand this. 2907:04:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2886:04:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2871:04:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2850:04:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2822:03:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2792:04:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2772:03:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2747:03:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2729:03:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2708:02:58, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2681:01:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2647:19:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2629:13:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2606:11:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2585:03:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2558:02:52, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2485:18:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2464:17:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2439:13:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2411:03:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2388:02:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2349:04:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 2320:17:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2293:13:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2270:03:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2253:02:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 2232:02:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC) 1560:Garrett Bradley (Q24708111) 1545:Gloria Gallardo (Q22977985) 1520:Mary Jane Evans (Q20804657) 1465:Sarah Dickenson (Q18576991) 1445:Mary Sutherland (Q18529261) 1370:Sofia Romanskaya (Q3488830) 1365:Mademoiselle Hus (Q3275902) 339:is not preferable. Regards 10: 8555: 8231:(previous xFD deletion) + 8109:search. I will cite again 7012:rather than advertisements 6919:Increasing the scope of G5 5629:WP:Avoid instruction creep 5298:) become subject to G5. -- 1625:Margaret Bryan (Q56796014) 1550:Charlotte Kemp (Q23899569) 631:ARA Cabo San Antonio (Q42) 7604:subjective, not more so. 6607:notable, it's not an A7. 5541:This is more a topic for 5077:I would hope that admins 4151:Did G14 revise the scope? 1650:Evelyn Tuanui (Q66789555) 1605:Tampa Tribune (Q55421740) 1600:Roisin Thomas (Q47466234) 1570:Violet Hilton (Q26257473) 1540:Letitia Bushe (Q21543883) 1535:Margaret Barr (Q21536433) 1495:Nora Griffith (Q18819729) 1485:Eleanor Smith (Q18756679) 1460:Leonora David (Q18576631) 1450:Matilda Penne (Q18529313) 1385:Blanche Howard (Q3640850) 1350:Nina M. Davies (Q1992876) 8227:Long answer: Generally " 7806:By the text of the page 3496:Please do not modify it. 2399:Template:Promising draft 2165:Please do not modify it. 2046:Unremarkable product A7? 1630:Joanne Burke (Q57083158) 1595:Bryony Botha (Q45435324) 1565:Daisy Hilton (Q26255666) 1530:Alice Walton (Q21524588) 1515:Suzanne Blum (Q20655745) 1500:Mary Herbert (Q18936206) 1480:Agnes Ramsey (Q18670643) 1355:Alice Cleaver (Q2646855) 603:French submarine Z (Q36) 596:French submarine X (Q35) 5827:and it, along with the 4459:Thanks for your reply, 4396:re-created in mainspace 1440:Marion Kent (Q18529029) 7792:deleted the page). -- 7321:because I'm a huuuuge 7134: 7032: 6353: 5612: 5491: 3878: 3846:Proposal: Expanding G8 3503:Unused personal photos 3352:Danielle Younge-Ullman 1640:Anne Leahy (Q58797912) 1580:Karen Page (Q27987843) 1575:Sally Mene (Q27538535) 1525:Lois Clark (Q21508666) 1510:Enid Stacy (Q19325606) 1430:Diane Bell (Q17224870) 1420:Pearl Carr (Q16879265) 1330:Kim So-yeon (Q1031888) 8371:Justlettersandnumbers 8336:Justlettersandnumbers 8305:Justlettersandnumbers 7577:(b) Discuss it at MfD 7312:, per basically what 7130: 7079:neutral point of view 7020:neutral point of view 6999: 6322: 6272:claim of significance 6126:Dunning-Kruger effect 5595: 5480: 4490:Justlettersandnumbers 4465:Justlettersandnumbers 4407:Justlettersandnumbers 3852: 3824:User:Pkbwcgs/PROD log 3822:and a big list is at 2499:, not "drafts should 1505:Mary Cary (Q19043376) 1405:Li Xiaolin (Q8249017) 1310:Sandra Lerner (Q7549) 722:Infiniti M (Q70/Q70L) 42:of past discussions. 8414:Why is it on 30/500? 7744:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 7117:topic is notable. 6709:high school teachers 5525:state of the article 5521:state of the subject 5476:state of the subject 5472:state of the article 5296:Category:Royal Docks 360:, not that they are 7548:Hogfather version 1 6891:Separate discussion 6644:The White Mandingos 6593:Oppose any sort of 6270:There is really no 6072:meet the test of a 4441:is an extension of 3117:Draft:Judy Sullivan 2589:"Bad drafts should 8004:Draft:Sebby Frazer 7944:Draft:Sebby Frazer 7926:native advertising 7526:native advertising 7212:I see your point, 7139:Native advertising 7126:Draft:Sebby Frazer 7014:. If a subject is 6022:David Attenborough 6000:sanctioning people 5817:David Attenborough 5607:any credible claim 5495:David Attenborough 5489:and loves animals. 4883:Time limits on G4? 3859:Examples include: 3612:personal photos. ♠ 3421:AReaderOutThataway 3405:WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY 3200:- XfDs closed for 2166: 1666:quarry:query/39909 1662:quarry:query/39906 1645:Et al. (Q59296680) 8452: 8451: 8362: 8361: 8343:Special:Watchlist 8264: 8263: 8122:DESiegel Contribs 8083:DESiegel Contribs 8046:DESiegel Contribs 8015:DESiegel Contribs 7412: 7224:DESiegel Contribs 7185:DESiegel Contribs 6975: 6909:DESiegel Contribs 6844:DESiegel Contribs 6832:You are correct, 6807:DESiegel Contribs 6584:DESiegel Contribs 6307:DESiegel Contribs 6290:DESiegel Contribs 6254:DESiegel Contribs 5819:with the content 5784: 5666: 5557:status of article 5390:DESiegel Contribs 5382:to the CSD page. 5292:Category:Ladywell 5288:Category:Lewisham 5246:DESiegel Contribs 4857:DESiegel Contribs 4833: 4606: 4599: 4244: 4156:indeed the case? 3961:DESiegel Contribs 3803:DESiegel Contribs 3450: 3140:DESiegel Contribs 2999:So, I definitely 2934:Proposed deletion 2560: 2544:comment added by 2206:placeholder text. 2164: 2129:DESiegel Contribs 2017: 1935:DESiegel Contribs 1761:978-0-61-844670-4 1657: 1656: 977:Casabianca (Q183) 568:HMCS Ambler (Q11) 554:Gustave Zédé (Q2) 547:Gustave Zede (Q2) 335:wikidata redirect 148:implausible that 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 8546: 8513: 8485: 8479: 8443: 8439: 8425: 8424: 8418: 8351: 8350: 8339: 8276: 8253: 8252: 8143: 7908: 7890: 7836:evidence subpage 7818: 7745: 7725: 7707: 7692: 7687: 7662: 7482: 7406: 7334: 7329: 7302: 7293:Misses the point 7283: 7124:Today's case is 7030: 7023: 6996: 6963: 6878: 6877: 6874: 6871: 6864: 6756: 6755: 6752: 6749: 6624: 6616: 6488: 6469: 6461: 6440: 6422: 6417: 6405: 6386: 6381: 6201: 6168: 6163: 6150: 6122: 6103: 6044:a list of claims 5927: 5926: 5923: 5920: 5886: 5881: 5876: 5860: 5859: 5856: 5853: 5840: 5835: 5822: 5798: 5797: 5794: 5791: 5778: 5751: 5746: 5706: 5701: 5660: 5509: 5508: 5505: 5502: 5302: 5211: 5206: 5137:G5 Clarification 5013: 5007: 4871: 4830: 4824: 4819: 4817: 4806:the member count 4799: 4772: 4717: 4679: 4619: 4604: 4596: 4590: 4585: 4583: 4508: 4503: 4497: 4493: 4483: 4430: 4425: 4316: 4308: 4258: 4231: 4220: 4194: 4180: 4171:about a year ago 4162: 4160:Compassionate727 4143: 4136: 4115: 4110: 4067: 4062: 3979: 3925: 3920: 3889: 3884: 3872: 3745: 3737: 3697: 3696: 3693: 3690: 3678: 3673: 3648: 3635: 3630: 3602: 3563: 3562: 3559: 3556: 3523: 3522: 3519: 3516: 3449: 3392: 3384: 3345: 3323: 3274: 3273: 3270: 2927: 2904: 2899: 2876:a new page". -- 2868: 2863: 2839: 2833: 2769: 2764: 2726: 2721: 2678: 2673: 2539: 2449: 2315: 2214:deletion attempt 2198: 2192: 2001: 2000: 1981: 1958: 1805: 1784: 1702: 1360:Dihya (Q3027866) 1306: 1299: 1292: 1285: 1273: 1266: 1259: 1252: 1245: 1238: 1231: 1224: 1217: 1210: 1203: 1196: 1189: 1182: 1175: 1168: 1161: 1154: 1147: 1140: 1133: 1126: 1119: 1112: 1105: 1103:Africaine (Q196) 1098: 1091: 1084: 1077: 1070: 1063: 1056: 1049: 1042: 1035: 1028: 1021: 1014: 1007: 1000: 993: 986: 979: 972: 965: 958: 956:Bévéziers (Q179) 951: 949:Beveziers (Q179) 944: 937: 930: 923: 916: 904: 897: 890: 883: 876: 869: 862: 855: 848: 841: 829: 822: 815: 808: 801: 794: 787: 780: 773: 766: 759: 752: 745: 738: 731: 724: 717: 710: 703: 696: 689: 682: 675: 668: 661: 654: 647: 640: 633: 626: 619: 612: 605: 598: 591: 584: 577: 570: 563: 556: 549: 542: 535: 528: 512: 511: 493: 348: 343: 338: 183: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 8554: 8553: 8549: 8548: 8547: 8545: 8544: 8543: 8511: 8481: 8473: 8441: 8437: 8422: 8416: 8333: 8297: 8270: 8207: 8139: 8123: 8084: 8047: 8016: 7996:Strongly oppose 7898: 7886: 7816: 7743: 7723: 7705: 7690: 7685: 7660: 7480: 7332: 7327: 7323:Terry Pratchett 7300: 7281: 7238: 7225: 7199: 7186: 7160: 7028: 7001: 6994: 6984: 6945: 6921: 6910: 6893: 6875: 6872: 6869: 6868: 6858: 6845: 6808: 6753: 6750: 6747: 6746: 6620: 6612: 6585: 6486: 6465: 6457: 6438: 6420: 6415: 6403: 6384: 6379: 6308: 6291: 6266:of the article 6255: 6199: 6166: 6161: 6148: 6116: 6101: 5924: 5921: 5918: 5917: 5884: 5879: 5874: 5857: 5854: 5851: 5850: 5838: 5833: 5825:deletion policy 5820: 5795: 5792: 5789: 5788: 5749: 5744: 5704: 5699: 5682:read A7, imho? 5506: 5503: 5500: 5499: 5474:as well as the 5464: 5391: 5300: 5274:Lordrenthefirst 5272:indicates that 5247: 5209: 5204: 5139: 5108: 5107:it has begun... 5011: 5005: 4885: 4869:User:Uchenna578 4867: 4858: 4828: 4822: 4815: 4793: 4766: 4715: 4677: 4617: 4594: 4588: 4581: 4556: 4506: 4501: 4495: 4487: 4477: 4428: 4423: 4394:. It was later 4386:: the page was 4380: 4334: 4312: 4304: 4273: 4256: 4218: 4192: 4178: 4157: 4153: 4134: 4132: 4113: 4108: 4065: 4060: 3977: 3962: 3923: 3918: 3887: 3882: 3873: 3866: 3848: 3804: 3787:strongly oppose 3741: 3733: 3694: 3691: 3688: 3687: 3676: 3671: 3642: 3633: 3628: 3594: 3560: 3557: 3554: 3553: 3520: 3517: 3514: 3513: 3505: 3500: 3499: 3428: 3409:WP:Common sense 3388: 3380: 3339: 3317: 3301: 3271: 3268: 3267: 3216: 3141: 2938:speedy deletion 2921: 2902: 2892: 2866: 2856: 2837: 2835:Promising draft 2831: 2767: 2757: 2751:G13 also fails 2724: 2714: 2676: 2666: 2626: 2603: 2528:WP:NOTPROMOTION 2482: 2443: 2436: 2371: 2313: 2309:two weeks ago. 2291: 2268: 2239: 2196: 2190: 2181:Draft namespace 2169: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2141: 2130: 2048: 2032:UnitedStatesian 1998: 1975: 1952: 1936: 1886: 1858: 1814:Graeme Bartlett 1800: 1782: 1765:ComplexRational 1735:title blacklist 1719: 1698: 1658: 1380:Biki (Q3639894) 1302: 1295: 1288: 1281: 1269: 1262: 1255: 1248: 1241: 1234: 1227: 1220: 1213: 1206: 1199: 1192: 1185: 1178: 1171: 1164: 1157: 1150: 1143: 1136: 1129: 1122: 1115: 1108: 1101: 1096:Favorite (Q195) 1094: 1087: 1080: 1073: 1066: 1059: 1052: 1045: 1038: 1031: 1024: 1017: 1010: 1003: 996: 989: 982: 975: 968: 961: 954: 947: 940: 933: 926: 919: 912: 900: 893: 886: 879: 872: 865: 858: 851: 844: 837: 825: 818: 811: 804: 797: 790: 783: 776: 769: 762: 755: 748: 741: 734: 727: 720: 713: 706: 699: 692: 685: 678: 671: 664: 657: 650: 643: 636: 629: 622: 615: 608: 601: 594: 587: 580: 573: 566: 559: 552: 545: 538: 531: 524: 517: 488: 466: 395: 346: 341: 332: 273: 241: 222: 172:ComplexRational 157: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 8552: 8542: 8541: 8522: 8521: 8520: 8450: 8449: 8426: 8415: 8412: 8411: 8410: 8409: 8408: 8407: 8406: 8331: 8299:So, criterion 8296: 8293: 8292: 8291: 8290: 8289: 8244: 8242: 8238: 8236: 8225: 8206: 8203: 8202: 8201: 8200: 8199: 8198: 8197: 8196: 8195: 8141: 8128: 8121: 8098: 8097: 8096: 8095: 8094: 8093: 8092: 8091: 8090: 8089: 8082: 8045: 8014: 7993: 7971: 7970: 7969: 7968: 7967: 7966: 7965: 7964: 7963: 7962: 7888: 7875: 7874: 7873: 7872: 7827: 7826: 7825: 7824: 7823: 7770: 7769: 7768: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7732: 7716: 7715: 7714: 7713: 7712: 7697: 7652: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7579: 7578: 7575: 7572: 7568: 7567: 7558: 7557: 7552: 7551: 7542: 7541: 7538: 7533: 7532: 7529: 7522: 7519: 7506: 7505: 7501: 7500: 7490: 7489: 7488: 7487: 7470: 7469: 7451: 7450: 7449: 7448: 7447: 7446: 7419: 7418: 7417: 7416: 7374:advertising'. 7363: 7339: 7307: 7290: 7258: 7257: 7256: 7255: 7254: 7253: 7252: 7251: 7250: 7249: 7236: 7223: 7197: 7184: 7158: 7114: 7113: 7110: 7107: 7104: 7101: 7100: 7099: 7082: 7075: 7072: 7069: 7065: 7054: 7053: 7049:Knowledge:Spam 7041: 7036:Knowledge:Spam 6983: 6980: 6944: 6939: 6920: 6917: 6916: 6915: 6908: 6892: 6889: 6888: 6887: 6886: 6885: 6856: 6855: 6854: 6853: 6852: 6851: 6850: 6843: 6806: 6764: 6763: 6729: 6728: 6727: 6726: 6725: 6724: 6683:Britishfinance 6673: 6672: 6660: 6659: 6640:500 Miles High 6629: 6590: 6583: 6558:Absolutely not 6554: 6553: 6552: 6551: 6550: 6549: 6530:Britishfinance 6517:Britishfinance 6501: 6500: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6496: 6495: 6494: 6493: 6356:Britishfinance 6343: 6333: 6325: 6321: 6320: 6316: 6315: 6314: 6313: 6306: 6296: 6289: 6268:500 Miles High 6253: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6212: 6211: 6210: 6209: 6208: 6111: 6110: 6093: 6092: 6082:Britishfinance 6065: 6064: 6063: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6030:Britishfinance 6018: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6014: 6004:Britishfinance 5942: 5941: 5940: 5939: 5938: 5937: 5936: 5935: 5934: 5905: 5829:editing policy 5771: 5770: 5769: 5768: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5763: 5762: 5761: 5760: 5759: 5758: 5757: 5756: 5729:Britishfinance 5725: 5717: 5684:Britishfinance 5648:Britishfinance 5616:Britishfinance 5594: 5593: 5590: 5575: 5574: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5561:Britishfinance 5529:Britishfinance 5463: 5460: 5459: 5458: 5435: 5434: 5433: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5420:Britishfinance 5418:, and thanks. 5397: 5396: 5389: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5347:Britishfinance 5318:Britishfinance 5245: 5235:Britishfinance 5221:Britishfinance 5190:Britishfinance 5159:Britishfinance 5138: 5135: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5131: 5106: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5075: 5027: 5026: 4997: 4980: 4979: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4884: 4881: 4880: 4879: 4863: 4856: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4788: 4787: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4725: 4724: 4708: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4655: 4641: 4625: 4624: 4609: 4608: 4555: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4535: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4485: 4392:moved to draft 4384:Kamerfer Kadın 4379: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4360: 4345: 4332: 4321: 4272: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4226: 4225: 4199: 4185: 4152: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4036: 4033: 4027: 4026: 4023: 4004: 3986: 3967: 3960: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3875: 3874: 3865: 3863: 3847: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3809: 3802: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3751: 3750: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3509:F10 on Commons 3504: 3501: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3455: 3454: 3445:request away. 3432: 3424: 3397: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3299: 3296: 3279: 3259: 3237: 3220: 3210: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3139: 3091: 3088: 3051:I didn't say " 3016: 3008: 3005: 2965: 2962: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2632: 2631: 2622: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2599: 2561: 2516: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2478: 2432: 2414: 2413: 2391: 2390: 2370: 2367: 2352: 2351: 2332: 2331: 2323: 2322: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2285: 2262: 2238: 2235: 2208: 2207: 2204:article wizard 2200: 2194:AFC submission 2184: 2170: 2161: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2140: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2128: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2047: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2021: 1991: 1968: 1941: 1934: 1922: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1880: 1852: 1810: 1789: 1775: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1717: 1706: 1692: 1676: 1675: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1647: 1642: 1637: 1632: 1627: 1622: 1617: 1612: 1607: 1602: 1597: 1592: 1587: 1582: 1577: 1572: 1567: 1562: 1557: 1552: 1547: 1542: 1537: 1532: 1527: 1522: 1517: 1512: 1507: 1502: 1497: 1492: 1487: 1482: 1477: 1472: 1467: 1462: 1457: 1452: 1447: 1442: 1437: 1432: 1427: 1422: 1417: 1412: 1407: 1402: 1397: 1392: 1390:Iyo (Q5358937) 1387: 1382: 1377: 1372: 1367: 1362: 1357: 1352: 1347: 1342: 1337: 1332: 1327: 1325:Iide (Q545771) 1322: 1317: 1312: 1307: 1300: 1293: 1286: 1279: 1274: 1267: 1260: 1253: 1246: 1239: 1232: 1225: 1218: 1211: 1204: 1197: 1190: 1183: 1176: 1169: 1162: 1155: 1148: 1141: 1134: 1127: 1120: 1113: 1106: 1099: 1092: 1085: 1078: 1071: 1064: 1057: 1050: 1043: 1036: 1029: 1022: 1015: 1008: 1005:Minerve (Q185) 1001: 994: 987: 980: 973: 966: 959: 952: 945: 938: 931: 924: 917: 914:Blaison (Q165) 910: 905: 898: 891: 884: 877: 870: 863: 856: 849: 842: 835: 830: 823: 816: 809: 802: 795: 788: 781: 774: 767: 760: 753: 746: 739: 732: 725: 718: 711: 704: 697: 690: 683: 676: 669: 662: 655: 648: 641: 634: 627: 620: 613: 606: 599: 592: 585: 578: 571: 564: 557: 550: 543: 536: 529: 519: 518: 515: 510: 509: 508: 498: 480: 479: 478: 477: 464: 445: 444: 443: 440: 437: 431: 430: 429:the following: 418: 401: 400: 399: 389: 376: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 281:in this manner 267: 235: 216: 145: 144: 143: 142: 139: 132: 129: 123: 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 8551: 8540: 8536: 8532: 8528: 8523: 8519: 8516: 8515: 8514: 8506: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8497: 8493: 8489: 8484: 8477: 8472: 8471: 8470: 8469: 8465: 8461: 8457: 8447: 8444:parameter to 8435: 8431: 8427: 8420: 8419: 8405: 8401: 8397: 8393: 8392: 8386: 8382: 8381: 8380: 8376: 8372: 8367: 8366: 8365: 8359: 8355: 8348: 8344: 8337: 8332: 8330: 8326: 8322: 8321:Jo-Jo Eumerus 8317: 8316: 8315: 8314: 8310: 8306: 8302: 8288: 8284: 8280: 8274: 8269: 8268: 8267: 8261: 8257: 8250: 8245: 8243: 8239: 8237: 8234: 8230: 8226: 8223: 8222: 8221: 8220: 8216: 8212: 8194: 8190: 8186: 8185: 8179: 8178: 8177: 8173: 8169: 8164: 8163: 8162: 8158: 8154: 8150: 8149: 8148: 8144: 8136: 8132: 8129: 8127: 8124: 8119: 8117: 8112: 8108: 8104: 8100: 8099: 8088: 8085: 8080: 8078: 8074: 8071: 8070: 8069: 8065: 8061: 8057: 8053: 8052: 8051: 8048: 8043: 8041: 8036: 8035: 8034: 8030: 8026: 8022: 8021: 8020: 8017: 8012: 8010: 8005: 8001: 7997: 7994: 7992: 7988: 7984: 7980: 7976: 7973: 7972: 7961: 7957: 7953: 7949: 7945: 7941: 7940: 7939: 7935: 7931: 7927: 7922: 7921: 7920: 7916: 7912: 7906: 7902: 7897: 7896: 7895: 7891: 7883: 7879: 7878: 7877: 7876: 7871: 7867: 7863: 7859: 7856: 7855: 7854: 7850: 7846: 7842: 7837: 7832: 7828: 7822: 7819: 7814: 7809: 7805: 7804: 7803: 7799: 7795: 7791: 7786: 7785: 7784: 7780: 7776: 7771: 7767: 7763: 7759: 7755: 7751: 7750: 7749: 7746: 7740: 7737: 7736: 7731: 7728: 7727: 7726: 7717: 7711: 7708: 7703: 7698: 7696: 7693: 7688: 7682: 7681: 7680: 7676: 7672: 7668: 7667: 7666: 7663: 7658: 7653: 7647: 7643: 7639: 7635: 7632: 7631: 7630: 7626: 7622: 7617: 7616: 7615: 7611: 7607: 7603: 7598: 7595: 7594: 7593: 7589: 7585: 7581: 7580: 7576: 7573: 7570: 7569: 7565: 7560: 7559: 7554: 7553: 7549: 7544: 7543: 7539: 7535: 7534: 7530: 7527: 7523: 7520: 7517: 7512: 7508: 7507: 7503: 7502: 7499: 7496: 7492: 7491: 7486: 7483: 7478: 7474: 7473: 7472: 7471: 7468: 7464: 7460: 7456: 7453: 7452: 7445: 7441: 7437: 7433: 7429: 7425: 7424: 7423: 7422: 7421: 7420: 7415: 7410: 7405: 7404: 7399: 7396: 7395: 7394: 7390: 7386: 7381: 7377: 7373: 7372: 7367: 7364: 7362: 7358: 7354: 7352: 7348: 7343: 7340: 7338: 7335: 7330: 7324: 7320: 7315: 7311: 7308: 7306: 7303: 7298: 7294: 7291: 7289: 7286: 7285: 7284: 7277: 7272: 7267: 7263: 7260: 7259: 7248: 7245: 7244: 7243: 7234: 7231: 7230: 7229: 7226: 7221: 7219: 7215: 7211: 7210: 7209: 7206: 7205: 7204: 7195: 7192: 7191: 7190: 7187: 7182: 7180: 7175: 7172: 7171: 7170: 7167: 7166: 7165: 7155: 7154: 7153: 7152: 7148: 7144: 7140: 7133: 7129: 7127: 7122: 7118: 7111: 7108: 7105: 7102: 7097: 7093: 7089: 7086: 7085: 7083: 7080: 7076: 7073: 7070: 7066: 7063: 7062: 7061: 7059: 7051: 7050: 7045: 7044: 7043: 7039: 7037: 7031: 7026: 7021: 7017: 7013: 7009: 7008:fundamentally 7005: 6998: 6991: 6989: 6979: 6978: 6973: 6970: 6967: 6962: 6958: 6954: 6950: 6943: 6938: 6937: 6933: 6929: 6926: 6914: 6911: 6906: 6904: 6900: 6895: 6894: 6884: 6881: 6879: 6862: 6857: 6849: 6846: 6841: 6839: 6835: 6831: 6830: 6829: 6826: 6822: 6818: 6814: 6813: 6812: 6809: 6804: 6802: 6799: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6790: 6788: 6786: 6785: 6780: 6776: 6772: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6765: 6762: 6759: 6757: 6743: 6739: 6737: 6731: 6730: 6723: 6720: 6718: 6716: 6715: 6710: 6706: 6702: 6698: 6694: 6693: 6692: 6688: 6684: 6680: 6675: 6674: 6670: 6669: 6664: 6663: 6662: 6661: 6658: 6655: 6653: 6651: 6650: 6645: 6641: 6637: 6633: 6630: 6628: 6625: 6623: 6617: 6615: 6610: 6609:SportingFlyer 6606: 6601: 6597: 6596: 6591: 6589: 6586: 6581: 6579: 6574: 6568: 6563: 6559: 6556: 6555: 6548: 6544: 6540: 6535: 6531: 6528: 6527: 6526: 6522: 6518: 6514: 6510: 6506: 6502: 6492: 6489: 6484: 6480: 6475: 6474: 6473: 6470: 6468: 6462: 6460: 6455: 6454:SportingFlyer 6451: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6441: 6436: 6431: 6428: 6427: 6426: 6423: 6418: 6411: 6410: 6409: 6406: 6401: 6397: 6392: 6391: 6390: 6387: 6382: 6376: 6372: 6368: 6367: 6366: 6365: 6361: 6357: 6352: 6349: 6344: 6341: 6337: 6331: 6326: 6318: 6317: 6312: 6309: 6304: 6302: 6297: 6295: 6292: 6287: 6285: 6281: 6277: 6273: 6269: 6265: 6261: 6260: 6259: 6256: 6251: 6249: 6244: 6239: 6234: 6229: 6225: 6221: 6220: 6207: 6204: 6203: 6202: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6188: 6186: 6184: 6183: 6178: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6169: 6164: 6158: 6157: 6156: 6153: 6152: 6151: 6142: 6141: 6140: 6137: 6135: 6133: 6132: 6127: 6120: 6115: 6114: 6113: 6112: 6109: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6095: 6094: 6091: 6087: 6083: 6079: 6075: 6071: 6067: 6066: 6057: 6053: 6049: 6045: 6041: 6040: 6039: 6035: 6031: 6027: 6023: 6019: 6013: 6009: 6005: 6001: 5997: 5996: 5995: 5991: 5987: 5982: 5981: 5980: 5976: 5972: 5968: 5963: 5959: 5958: 5953: 5949: 5948: 5943: 5933: 5930: 5928: 5914: 5910: 5906: 5904: 5900: 5896: 5892: 5891: 5890: 5887: 5882: 5872: 5868: 5867: 5866: 5863: 5861: 5846: 5845: 5844: 5841: 5836: 5830: 5826: 5818: 5814: 5810: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5801: 5799: 5782: 5781:edit conflict 5777: 5776: 5775: 5774: 5773: 5772: 5755: 5752: 5747: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5734: 5730: 5726: 5722: 5718: 5715: 5712: 5711: 5710: 5707: 5702: 5695: 5694: 5693: 5689: 5685: 5680: 5679: 5678: 5674: 5670: 5664: 5663:edit conflict 5659: 5658: 5657: 5653: 5649: 5644: 5643: 5642: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5621: 5617: 5614: 5613: 5611: 5608: 5604: 5600: 5591: 5589: 5585: 5581: 5580:Jo-Jo Eumerus 5576: 5570: 5566: 5562: 5558: 5554: 5553: 5552: 5549: 5544: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5534: 5530: 5526: 5522: 5518: 5517: 5516: 5515: 5512: 5510: 5496: 5490: 5488: 5484: 5479: 5477: 5473: 5469: 5466:This...isn't 5457: 5453: 5449: 5445: 5441: 5437: 5436: 5429: 5425: 5421: 5417: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5408: 5405: 5401: 5400: 5399: 5398: 5395: 5392: 5387: 5385: 5381: 5376: 5375: 5356: 5352: 5348: 5343: 5342: 5341: 5337: 5333: 5329: 5328: 5327: 5323: 5319: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5308: 5304: 5297: 5293: 5289: 5285: 5282: 5279: 5275: 5271: 5267: 5264: 5261: 5257: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5248: 5243: 5241: 5236: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5226: 5222: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5212: 5207: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5195: 5191: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5180: 5176: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5156: 5152: 5151:Russell Books 5148: 5144: 5130: 5126: 5122: 5118: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5109: 5104: 5100: 5092: 5088: 5084: 5080: 5076: 5072: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5062: 5058: 5053: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5030: 5029: 5028: 5025: 5022: 5017: 5010: 5009:old AFD multi 5003: 4998: 4996: 4993: 4990: 4986: 4982: 4981: 4978: 4975: 4972: 4967: 4963: 4960: 4957: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4933:Jo-Jo Eumerus 4930: 4926: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4919: 4915: 4910: 4908: 4904: 4900: 4895: 4893: 4888: 4878: 4875: 4870: 4864: 4862: 4859: 4854: 4852: 4848: 4843: 4842: 4837: 4834: 4831: 4825: 4818: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4797: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4786: 4783: 4780: 4776: 4770: 4765: 4761: 4757: 4753: 4749: 4748: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4736: 4732: 4727: 4726: 4723: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4709: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4694: 4689: 4688: 4683: 4680: 4675: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4664: 4660: 4659:Jo-Jo Eumerus 4656: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4642: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4627: 4626: 4623: 4620: 4615: 4611: 4610: 4603: 4600: 4597: 4591: 4584: 4577: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4549: 4545: 4541: 4536: 4534: 4530: 4526: 4522: 4521: 4512: 4509: 4504: 4491: 4486: 4481: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4470: 4466: 4462: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4435: 4434: 4431: 4426: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4399: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4346: 4344: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4330: 4325: 4322: 4320: 4317: 4315: 4309: 4307: 4302: 4301:SportingFlyer 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4291: 4287: 4283: 4279: 4262: 4259: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4245: 4243: 4239: 4235: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4224: 4221: 4216: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4198: 4195: 4190: 4186: 4184: 4181: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4161: 4146: 4141: 4137: 4130: 4126: 4123: 4119: 4116: 4111: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4099: 4094: 4093: 4086: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4068: 4063: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4037: 4034: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4024: 4022: 4018: 4014: 4013: 4008: 4005: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3990: 3987: 3985: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3971: 3968: 3966: 3963: 3958: 3956: 3951: 3948: 3942: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3926: 3921: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3909: 3905: 3904:very unlikely 3901: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3890: 3885: 3877: 3870: 3864: 3862: 3861: 3860: 3857: 3856: 3851: 3841: 3837: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3810: 3808: 3805: 3800: 3798: 3793: 3788: 3785: 3784: 3779: 3776: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3757: 3753: 3752: 3749: 3746: 3744: 3738: 3736: 3731: 3730:SportingFlyer 3727: 3726: 3721: 3718: 3713: 3703: 3700: 3698: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3679: 3674: 3667: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3646: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3636: 3631: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3601: 3599: 3598: 3592: 3586: 3583: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3566: 3564: 3550: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3526: 3524: 3510: 3497: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3459: 3453: 3448: 3447:Seraphimblade 3444: 3440: 3436: 3433: 3431: 3427: 3422: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3393: 3391: 3385: 3383: 3378: 3377:SportingFlyer 3374: 3371: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3353: 3349: 3343: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3321: 3316: 3315: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3280: 3278: 3275: 3263: 3260: 3258: 3255: 3254: 3249: 3245: 3244:WP:WRONGVENUE 3241: 3238: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3224: 3221: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3209: 3208: 3203: 3202:WP:WRONGVENUE 3199: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3177: 3145: 3142: 3137: 3135: 3131: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3092: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3014: 3009: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2966: 2963: 2960: 2956: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2925: 2920: 2908: 2905: 2900: 2898: 2897: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2869: 2864: 2862: 2861: 2853: 2852: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2836: 2829: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2770: 2765: 2763: 2762: 2754: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2727: 2722: 2720: 2719: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2682: 2679: 2674: 2672: 2671: 2663: 2659: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2630: 2625: 2620: 2616: 2613: 2612: 2607: 2602: 2597: 2592: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2562: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2543: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2486: 2481: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2447: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2393: 2392: 2389: 2385: 2381: 2376: 2373: 2372: 2366: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2324: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2294: 2289: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2266: 2260: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2234: 2233: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2215: 2205: 2201: 2195: 2188: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2174: 2168: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2134: 2131: 2126: 2124: 2119: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2016: 2014: 2010: 2006: 1996: 1992: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1980: 1979: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1957: 1956: 1949: 1945: 1942: 1940: 1937: 1932: 1930: 1926: 1923: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1908: 1902: 1899: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1879: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1856: 1851: 1850: 1845: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1797: 1793: 1790: 1788: 1785: 1779: 1776: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1747: 1743: 1740: 1736: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1715: 1710: 1707: 1705: 1701: 1696: 1693: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1678: 1677: 1674: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1660: 1659: 1651: 1648: 1646: 1643: 1641: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1631: 1628: 1626: 1623: 1621: 1618: 1616: 1613: 1611: 1608: 1606: 1603: 1601: 1598: 1596: 1593: 1591: 1588: 1586: 1583: 1581: 1578: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1568: 1566: 1563: 1561: 1558: 1556: 1553: 1551: 1548: 1546: 1543: 1541: 1538: 1536: 1533: 1531: 1528: 1526: 1523: 1521: 1518: 1516: 1513: 1511: 1508: 1506: 1503: 1501: 1498: 1496: 1493: 1491: 1488: 1486: 1483: 1481: 1478: 1476: 1473: 1471: 1468: 1466: 1463: 1461: 1458: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1448: 1446: 1443: 1441: 1438: 1436: 1433: 1431: 1428: 1426: 1423: 1421: 1418: 1416: 1413: 1411: 1408: 1406: 1403: 1401: 1398: 1396: 1393: 1391: 1388: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1378: 1376: 1373: 1371: 1368: 1366: 1363: 1361: 1358: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1348: 1346: 1343: 1341: 1338: 1336: 1333: 1331: 1328: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1318: 1316: 1313: 1311: 1308: 1305: 1301: 1298: 1294: 1291: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1265: 1261: 1258: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1244: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1212: 1209: 1205: 1202: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1174: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1146: 1142: 1139: 1135: 1132: 1128: 1125: 1124:Astrée (Q200) 1121: 1118: 1117:Astree (Q200) 1114: 1111: 1107: 1104: 1100: 1097: 1093: 1090: 1086: 1083: 1079: 1076: 1075:Créole (Q193) 1072: 1069: 1068:Creole (Q193) 1065: 1062: 1058: 1055: 1051: 1048: 1044: 1041: 1037: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1020: 1016: 1013: 1009: 1006: 1002: 999: 995: 992: 988: 985: 981: 978: 974: 971: 967: 964: 960: 957: 953: 950: 946: 943: 939: 936: 932: 929: 925: 922: 918: 915: 911: 909: 906: 903: 899: 896: 895:Protée (Q155) 892: 889: 885: 882: 878: 875: 871: 868: 864: 861: 857: 854: 850: 847: 843: 840: 836: 834: 831: 828: 824: 821: 817: 814: 810: 807: 803: 800: 796: 793: 789: 786: 782: 779: 775: 772: 768: 765: 761: 758: 754: 751: 747: 744: 740: 737: 733: 730: 726: 723: 719: 716: 712: 709: 705: 702: 698: 695: 691: 688: 684: 681: 677: 674: 670: 667: 663: 660: 656: 653: 649: 646: 642: 639: 635: 632: 628: 625: 621: 618: 614: 611: 607: 604: 600: 597: 593: 590: 586: 583: 579: 576: 572: 569: 565: 562: 558: 555: 551: 548: 544: 541: 537: 534: 530: 527: 526:SkyPoint (Q1) 523: 522: 521: 520: 514: 513: 507: 504: 499: 497: 494: 491: 485: 482: 481: 476: 473: 472: 471: 462: 459: 458: 457: 453: 450: 446: 441: 438: 435: 434: 433: 432: 427: 422: 419: 417: 413: 409: 405: 402: 398: 394: 393: 388: 387: 382: 377: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 354: 353: 352: 349: 344: 336: 329: 325: 322: 321: 314: 310: 306: 301: 295: 291: 287: 282: 278: 277: 276: 272: 271: 266: 265: 260: 259: 258: 254: 250: 246: 245: 244: 240: 239: 234: 233: 227: 226: 225: 221: 220: 215: 214: 209: 206: 205: 204: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 154: 151: 150:Douglas Adams 140: 137: 133: 130: 127: 126: 124: 121: 118: 117: 116: 113: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 8509: 8508: 8487: 8453: 8445: 8430:edit request 8389: 8298: 8208: 8182: 8130: 8111:this example 8102: 7999: 7995: 7974: 7947: 7738: 7721: 7720: 7601: 7596: 7510: 7454: 7401: 7379: 7375: 7370: 7369: 7365: 7350: 7346: 7341: 7309: 7292: 7279: 7278: 7274: 7265: 7261: 7241: 7240: 7202: 7201: 7163: 7162: 7135: 7131: 7123: 7119: 7115: 7091: 7057: 7055: 7047: 7046:2006 Oct: " 7040: 7033: 7024: 7007: 7003: 7000: 6992: 6987: 6985: 6968: 6946: 6922: 6796: 6783: 6775:Seigenthaler 6741: 6735: 6733: 6713: 6708: 6700: 6696: 6666: 6648: 6631: 6619: 6611: 6604: 6592: 6573:appropriate. 6571: 6557: 6533: 6503:(ec) Thanks 6464: 6456: 6429: 6371:15 years ago 6354: 6345: 6327: 6323: 6264:this version 6237: 6232: 6227: 6223: 6197: 6196: 6181: 6176: 6146: 6145: 6130: 6099: 6098: 6077: 6069: 6026:GreenMeansGo 5999: 5961: 5956: 5955: 5951: 5946: 5945: 5912: 5908: 5606: 5602: 5596: 5556: 5524: 5523:and not the 5520: 5492: 5485:was born in 5482: 5481: 5475: 5471: 5467: 5465: 5378: 5280: 5262: 5154: 5146: 5142: 5140: 5115:Yes you did 5083:Andy Dingley 5078: 5070: 5038:Andy Dingley 5033: 4984: 4928: 4914:Andy Dingley 4911: 4906: 4902: 4898: 4896: 4889: 4886: 4813: 4774: 4745: 4713: 4712: 4691: 4631:David Gerard 4579: 4575: 4557: 4443:WP:BANREVERT 4400: 4381: 4337: 4336: 4328: 4311: 4303: 4274: 4202: 4154: 4124: 4011: 4006: 3988: 3975: 3974: 3969: 3949: 3903: 3899: 3879: 3876: 3858: 3854: 3853: 3849: 3811: 3791: 3786: 3754:Is there an 3740: 3732: 3609: 3596: 3506: 3495: 3457: 3456: 3438: 3434: 3399: 3387: 3379: 3372: 3298: 3281: 3261: 3252: 3239: 3222: 3212: 3206: 3197: 3180: 3175: 3129: 3124: 3120: 3052: 3033: 3000: 2968:suffice. -- 2895: 2893: 2859: 2857: 2800: 2760: 2758: 2717: 2715: 2669: 2667: 2614: 2590: 2568: 2563: 2540:— Preceding 2519: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2470: 2451: 2424: 2420: 2394: 2374: 2353: 2311: 2310: 2211: 2209: 2175: 2171: 2162: 2148:David Gerard 2049: 2023: 2002: 1977: 1976: 1970: 1954: 1953: 1943: 1924: 1905: 1900: 1882: 1876: 1854: 1848: 1801: 1791: 1777: 1748: 1722: 1721: 1708: 1694: 1019:Junon (Q186) 489: 483: 469: 468: 420: 403: 391: 385: 361: 357: 323: 280: 269: 263: 237: 231: 218: 212: 207: 155: 146: 135: 119: 109: 78: 43: 37: 7380:unambiguous 7371:Unambiguous 7004:exclusively 6947:Please see 6222:I strongly 5813:WP:PRESERVE 5256:Hopeful2014 4480:Sir Sputnik 4447:Sir Sputnik 3597:UnnamedUser 3227:K.e.coffman 2505:usually not 2071:Atlantic306 1714:WP:R#DELETE 421:Weak oppose 362:implausible 36:This is an 8438:|answered= 8103:orthogonal 7808:WP:BLPPROD 7432:WP:AUTOBIO 7088:User:Hobit 6861:Ritchie333 6821:discussion 6784:Ritchie333 6714:Ritchie333 6679:Ritchie333 6649:Ritchie333 6182:Ritchie333 6131:Ritchie333 6070:explicitly 5633:Malcolmxl5 5597:Unlike at 5332:Malcolmxl5 5175:Malcolmxl5 5103:* Pppery * 4901:here for, 3934:exceptions 3419:, etc. — 3356:Clovermoss 3320:Clovermoss 3305:Clovermoss 3253:CASSIOPEIA 2695:User:Bradv 2658:Ivanvector 2619:Ivanvector 2596:Ivanvector 2536:WP:CSD#G11 2497:Ivanvector 2475:Ivanvector 2446:Ivanvector 2429:Ivanvector 98:Archive 80 90:Archive 78 85:Archive 77 79:Archive 76 73:Archive 75 68:Archive 74 60:Archive 70 8531:Thryduulf 8527:WP:NEWCSD 8483:DeltaQuad 8168:Thryduulf 8153:SmokeyJoe 8107:WP:BEFORE 8073:SmokeyJoe 8060:SmokeyJoe 8054:Tell me, 8025:SmokeyJoe 8000:blatantly 7983:Thryduulf 7952:Thryduulf 7930:SmokeyJoe 7911:Thryduulf 7905:SmokeyJoe 7862:SmokeyJoe 7858:Thryduulf 7845:Thryduulf 7841:WP:NEWCSD 7794:SmokeyJoe 7758:SmokeyJoe 7671:SmokeyJoe 7634:SmokeyJoe 7621:SmokeyJoe 7584:SmokeyJoe 7319:Hogfather 7143:SmokeyJoe 6953:admin bot 6779:WP:ACPERM 6600:WP:BEFORE 6595:WP:BEFORE 6567:WP:BEFORE 6336:WP:BEFORE 6276:WP:CSD#A3 6243:WP:BEFORE 6078:substance 6074:WP:BEFORE 5952:objective 5721:WP:BEFORE 5487:Isleworth 5121:Barkeep49 5057:Barkeep49 5052:two above 4816:Anarchyte 4769:Anarchyte 4645:Barkeep49 4582:Anarchyte 4540:Thryduulf 4350:SmokeyJoe 4234:Barkeep49 4201:Oh, hey, 4129:Thryduulf 4077:Thryduulf 4045:SmokeyJoe 3994:Thryduulf 3652:Thryduulf 3481:Barkeep49 3443:WP:REFUND 3348:WP:Refund 3248:WP:REFUND 3185:Barkeep49 3113:SmokeyJoe 3100:SmokeyJoe 3074:Barkeep49 3070:SmokeyJoe 3057:SmokeyJoe 3039:Barkeep49 3020:SmokeyJoe 2987:Barkeep49 2983:SmokeyJoe 2970:SmokeyJoe 2955:Barkeep49 2942:Barkeep49 2930:WP:NEWCSD 2924:SmokeyJoe 2878:SmokeyJoe 2842:SmokeyJoe 2784:SmokeyJoe 2753:WP:NEWCSD 2739:SmokeyJoe 2735:WP:NEWCSD 2700:SmokeyJoe 2639:Barkeep49 2577:SmokeyJoe 2573:WP:REFUND 2546:SmokeyJoe 2403:SmokeyJoe 2341:SmokeyJoe 2187:Userspace 2104:Thryduulf 2100:WP:NEWCSD 2085:Loksmythe 2056:Loksmythe 1978:Steel1943 1955:Steel1943 1829:Thryduulf 1682:Thryduulf 461:Wugapodes 408:Thryduulf 366:Thryduulf 326:Why does 324:Question: 305:Thryduulf 286:Thryduulf 249:Thryduulf 194:Thryduulf 160:Wugapodes 8476:Gale5050 8460:Gale5050 8358:contribs 8279:Glades12 8260:contribs 8211:Glades12 7638:Adam9007 7606:Adam9007 7436:Adam9007 7398:Adam9007 7385:Adam9007 7242:Rosguill 7237:signed, 7233:DESiegel 7214:Rosguill 7203:Rosguill 7198:signed, 7194:DESiegel 7174:Rosguill 7164:Rosguill 7159:signed, 6539:Adam9007 6509:DESiegel 6048:Adam9007 5971:Adam9007 5877:Regards 5669:Glades12 5440:DESiegel 5416:DESiegel 5404:RoySmith 5284:contribs 5266:contribs 5119:. Best, 4989:RoySmith 4796:RoySmith 4779:RoySmith 4364:Glades12 4338:Rosguill 4333:signed, 4012:CptViraj 3549:this guy 3535:creffett 3417:WP:CLOSE 3286:Darkwind 2693:I think 2662:deadline 2554:contribs 2542:unsigned 2282:McMatter 2259:McMatter 2199:template 2189:with an 2028:WP:CREEP 1783:Lenticel 1723:Rosguill 1718:signed, 470:Rosguill 465:signed, 452:a·po·des 426:Rosguill 180:Lenticel 176:Rosguill 8512:Hut 8.5 8385:CAT:CSD 8347:davidwr 8273:Davidwr 8249:davidwr 7790:someone 7724:Hut 8.5 7564:WP:YAMB 7537:absurd. 7495:Cryptic 7314:Hut 8.5 7282:Hut 8.5 7271:WP:SPAM 7098:this to 7096:changed 7016:notable 6834:Cryptic 6825:Cryptic 6632:Comment 6200:Hut 8.5 6149:Hut 8.5 6119:Hut 8.5 6102:Hut 8.5 5909:Are you 5809:WP:ARTN 5603:subject 5548:Cryptic 5021:Cryptic 5002:blanked 4874:Cryptic 4716:Hut 8.5 4525:Thincat 4388:created 4324:Wikkist 4286:Wikkist 4278:WP:PROF 4135:Invalid 4125:Support 4098:Cryptic 3978:Hut 8.5 3938:Cryptic 3908:Cryptic 3832:Pkbwcgs 3820:WP:PROD 3812:Support 3775:Cryptic 3761:Thincat 3717:Cryptic 3477:Hasteur 3463:Hasteur 3458:Comment 3342:Hasteur 3327:Hasteur 3300:Support 3004:months. 2959:WP:PROD 2591:not all 2532:WP:CORP 2509:not all 2456:Hasteur 2380:Hasteur 2356:Hasteur 2314:Hut 8.5 2288:contrib 2265:contrib 2245:Hasteur 2224:Hasteur 1971:Neutral 1944:Comment 1867:Cryptic 1792:Comment 1778:Support 1749:Support 1739:Cryptic 1695:Support 1670:Cryptic 503:Cryptic 208:Support 178:, and 164:Xezbeth 39:archive 8233:CSD-C1 8229:CSD-G4 8135:Ahecht 8131:Oppose 7975:Oppose 7901:Ahecht 7882:Ahecht 7739:Oppose 7455:oppose 7428:WP:G11 7366:Oppose 7342:Oppose 7310:Oppose 7262:Oppose 7068:well." 6961:JJMC89 6348:WP:AfD 6228:always 6224:object 5871:WP:BMB 5599:WP:AfD 5543:WT:RFA 5468:really 5448:Cabayi 5407:(talk) 5303:rose64 5155:before 5147:before 5117:Pppery 5034:admins 4992:(talk) 4971:Anomie 4956:Anomie 4847:WP:DRV 4782:(talk) 4576:should 4007:Oppose 3989:Oppose 3970:Oppose 3950:Oppose 3756:Engvar 3618:(talk) 3610:unused 3582:(talk) 3439:happen 3435:Oppose 3413:WP:IAR 3400:Oppose 3373:Oppose 3282:Oppose 3272:ASTILY 3262:Oppose 3240:Oppose 3223:Oppose 3198:Oppose 3125:always 3001:oppose 2828:WP:DUD 2615:Oppose 2569:should 2524:WP:NOT 2425:always 2395:Oppose 2375:Oppose 2330:(2013) 2278:WP:AFC 2024:Oppose 1925:Oppose 1901:Oppose 484:Oppose 404:Oppose 381:ORCIDs 358:useful 186:WT:RFD 8442:|ans= 8428:This 8391:Kusma 8301:WP:C1 8295:WP:C1 8189:talk 7948:every 7775:Hobit 7756:? -- 7511:think 7459:Hobit 7409:help! 7353:alton 7276:view. 7266:think 7056:The " 7025:Note: 6997:) is 6957:WP:C1 6562:SoWhy 6560:. As 6505:SoWhy 6450:WP:A7 6332:; and 6238:knows 6233:knows 5986:Bbb23 5895:Bbb23 5724:text. 5714:SoWhy 5233:Yes, 5143:after 5079:would 4907:still 4802:Nsk92 4747:Kusma 4731:Nsk92 4693:Kusma 4561:Nsk92 4461:SoWhy 4439:WP:G5 4403:WP:G5 4249:enjoy 4211:voila 3645:SoWhy 3098:. -- 2810:WP:F4 2806:WP:C1 2782:. -- 2664:. – 2624:Edits 2601:Edits 2530:of a 2501:never 2480:Edits 2434:Edits 2421:never 2307:added 2052:WP:A7 1999:Amory 1995:Tavix 1907:Kusma 1844:WP:G7 1753:ISBNs 1700:Fiamh 328:WP:R3 168:Fiamh 16:< 8535:talk 8496:Chat 8492:Iffy 8464:talk 8375:talk 8354:talk 8325:talk 8309:talk 8283:talk 8256:talk 8215:talk 8172:talk 8157:talk 8142:PAGE 8140:TALK 8064:talk 8029:talk 7987:talk 7956:talk 7934:talk 7915:talk 7903:and 7889:PAGE 7887:TALK 7866:talk 7849:talk 7813:Wily 7798:talk 7779:talk 7762:talk 7702:Wily 7675:talk 7657:Wily 7642:talk 7625:talk 7610:talk 7602:less 7588:talk 7477:Wily 7463:talk 7440:talk 7389:talk 7357:talk 7297:Wily 7147:talk 7058:Note 6995:grey 6988:Note 6959:. — 6932:talk 6928:Izno 6823:). — 6817:diff 6771:here 6697:what 6687:talk 6543:talk 6521:talk 6513:WP:N 6483:Wily 6435:Wily 6400:Wily 6360:talk 6340:WP:N 6330:WP:N 6086:talk 6052:talk 6034:talk 6008:talk 5990:talk 5975:talk 5957:stop 5899:talk 5733:talk 5688:talk 5673:talk 5652:talk 5637:talk 5631:. -- 5620:talk 5610:AfD. 5584:talk 5565:talk 5533:talk 5483:Dave 5452:talk 5424:talk 5351:talk 5336:talk 5322:talk 5307:talk 5305:🌹 ( 5278:talk 5260:talk 5225:talk 5194:talk 5179:talk 5163:talk 5125:talk 5087:talk 5071:hope 5061:talk 5042:talk 5004:the 4937:talk 4918:talk 4890:See 4829:work 4823:talk 4735:talk 4674:Wily 4663:talk 4649:talk 4635:talk 4614:Wily 4595:work 4589:talk 4565:talk 4544:talk 4529:talk 4469:talk 4451:talk 4411:talk 4368:talk 4354:talk 4290:talk 4253:Wily 4238:talk 4215:Wily 4189:Wily 4175:Wily 4140:talk 4081:talk 4049:talk 3998:talk 3900:only 3836:talk 3765:talk 3656:talk 3539:talk 3485:talk 3467:talk 3360:talk 3331:talk 3309:talk 3290:talk 3231:talk 3207:Reyk 3189:talk 3104:talk 3078:talk 3061:talk 3053:only 3043:talk 3034:only 3024:talk 2991:talk 2974:talk 2946:talk 2894:brad 2882:talk 2858:brad 2846:talk 2818:talk 2788:talk 2759:brad 2743:talk 2716:brad 2704:talk 2668:brad 2643:talk 2581:talk 2550:talk 2520:only 2495:No, 2460:talk 2407:talk 2384:talk 2360:talk 2345:talk 2249:talk 2228:talk 2152:talk 2108:talk 2089:talk 2075:talk 2060:talk 2036:talk 2026:per 1985:talk 1962:talk 1877:Reyk 1849:Reyk 1833:talk 1818:talk 1804:avix 1798:. -- 1769:talk 1757:DOIs 1686:talk 492:avix 449:Wug· 412:talk 386:Reyk 370:talk 309:talk 290:talk 264:Reyk 253:talk 232:Reyk 213:Reyk 198:talk 188:and 8498:-- 8440:or 8432:to 8356:)/( 8258:)/( 8184:DGG 8116:DES 8077:DES 8056:DES 8040:DES 8009:DES 7691:Why 7430:or 7403:Guy 7349:am 7333:Why 7218:DES 7179:DES 7094:") 6903:DES 6838:DES 6801:DES 6701:why 6605:all 6578:DES 6421:Why 6385:Why 6301:DES 6284:DES 6248:DES 6177:and 6167:Why 5962:why 5947:far 5913:why 5907:... 5885:Why 5839:Why 5750:Why 5705:Why 5438:No 5384:DES 5380:G5. 5301:Red 5240:DES 5210:Why 4929:was 4899:not 4851:DES 4808:or 4507:Why 4429:Why 4329:not 4207:see 4114:Why 4066:Why 3955:DES 3924:Why 3888:Why 3797:DES 3792:not 3677:Why 3634:Why 3614:PMC 3578:PMC 3576:. ♠ 3213:YO! 3181:all 3176:the 3134:DES 3121:all 2814:Mz7 2808:or 2801:may 2123:DES 1993:As 1929:DES 1883:YO! 1855:YO! 392:YO! 347:Why 270:YO! 238:YO! 219:YO! 136:all 110:At 8537:) 8490:. 8466:) 8446:no 8402:) 8377:) 8345:. 8327:) 8311:) 8285:) 8217:) 8191:) 8174:) 8159:) 8145:) 8066:) 8031:) 7989:) 7958:) 7936:) 7917:) 7892:) 7868:) 7851:) 7800:) 7781:) 7764:) 7686:So 7677:) 7644:) 7627:) 7612:) 7590:) 7582:-- 7465:) 7442:) 7391:) 7359:) 7328:So 7149:) 7090:(" 7038:. 6934:) 6819:, 6689:) 6545:) 6532:, 6523:) 6416:So 6380:So 6362:) 6162:So 6088:) 6054:) 6036:) 6010:) 5992:) 5977:) 5901:) 5880:So 5834:So 5745:So 5735:) 5700:So 5690:) 5675:) 5654:) 5639:) 5622:) 5586:) 5567:) 5535:) 5454:) 5426:) 5353:) 5338:) 5324:) 5309:) 5294:, 5290:, 5227:) 5205:So 5196:) 5181:) 5165:) 5127:) 5089:) 5063:) 5044:) 5012:}} 5006:{{ 4939:) 4920:) 4849:. 4826:| 4758:) 4737:) 4704:) 4665:) 4651:) 4637:) 4592:| 4567:) 4546:) 4531:) 4502:So 4471:) 4453:) 4424:So 4413:) 4370:) 4356:) 4292:) 4284:. 4251:. 4240:) 4109:So 4083:) 4061:So 4051:) 4043:-- 4019:) 4017:📧 4000:) 3919:So 3883:So 3869:U5 3838:) 3767:) 3672:So 3658:) 3629:So 3616:♠ 3580:♠ 3541:) 3487:) 3469:) 3415:, 3411:, 3362:) 3333:) 3311:) 3292:) 3233:) 3191:) 3106:) 3080:) 3063:) 3045:) 3026:) 2993:) 2976:) 2948:) 2903:🍁 2884:) 2867:🍁 2848:) 2838:}} 2832:{{ 2820:) 2790:) 2768:🍁 2745:) 2725:🍁 2706:) 2677:🍁 2645:) 2627:) 2621:(/ 2604:) 2598:(/ 2583:) 2556:) 2552:• 2483:) 2477:(/ 2471:is 2462:) 2437:) 2431:(/ 2409:) 2386:) 2362:) 2347:) 2251:) 2230:) 2222:. 2197:}} 2191:{{ 2154:) 2110:) 2091:) 2077:) 2062:) 2038:) 2011:• 2007:• 1987:) 1964:) 1950:. 1918:) 1835:) 1820:) 1771:) 1755:, 1716:. 1688:) 454: 414:) 383:. 372:) 364:. 342:So 337:}} 333:{{ 311:) 292:) 255:) 200:) 192:. 174:, 170:, 166:, 162:, 120:R5 94:→ 64:← 8533:( 8494:★ 8478:: 8474:@ 8462:( 8400:c 8398:· 8396:t 8394:( 8388:— 8373:( 8360:) 8352:( 8349:/ 8338:: 8334:@ 8323:( 8307:( 8281:( 8275:: 8271:@ 8262:) 8254:( 8251:/ 8213:( 8187:( 8170:( 8155:( 8137:( 8062:( 8027:( 7985:( 7954:( 7932:( 7913:( 7907:: 7899:@ 7884:( 7864:( 7847:( 7817:D 7796:( 7777:( 7760:( 7706:D 7673:( 7661:D 7640:( 7623:( 7608:( 7586:( 7481:D 7461:( 7438:( 7411:) 7407:( 7387:( 7355:( 7351:W 7347:S 7301:D 7145:( 6974:) 6972:C 6969:· 6966:T 6964:( 6930:( 6876:G 6873:M 6870:G 6863:: 6859:@ 6754:G 6751:M 6748:G 6738:. 6685:( 6622:C 6618:· 6614:T 6541:( 6519:( 6487:D 6467:C 6463:· 6459:T 6439:D 6430:I 6404:D 6358:( 6342:. 6121:: 6117:@ 6084:( 6050:( 6032:( 6006:( 5988:( 5973:( 5925:G 5922:M 5919:G 5897:( 5858:G 5855:M 5852:G 5796:G 5793:M 5790:G 5783:) 5779:( 5731:( 5686:( 5671:( 5665:) 5661:( 5650:( 5635:( 5618:( 5582:( 5563:( 5546:— 5531:( 5507:G 5504:M 5501:G 5450:( 5422:( 5349:( 5334:( 5320:( 5281:· 5276:( 5263:· 5258:( 5223:( 5192:( 5177:( 5161:( 5123:( 5085:( 5059:( 5040:( 4974:⚔ 4959:⚔ 4935:( 4916:( 4832:) 4820:( 4798:: 4794:@ 4771:: 4767:@ 4756:c 4754:· 4752:t 4750:( 4733:( 4702:c 4700:· 4698:t 4696:( 4678:D 4661:( 4647:( 4633:( 4618:D 4607:) 4598:) 4586:( 4563:( 4542:( 4527:( 4492:: 4488:@ 4482:: 4478:@ 4467:( 4449:( 4409:( 4366:( 4352:( 4314:C 4310:· 4306:T 4288:( 4257:D 4236:( 4219:D 4203:I 4193:D 4179:D 4158:— 4142:) 4138:( 4079:( 4047:( 4015:( 3996:( 3871:) 3834:( 3763:( 3743:C 3739:· 3735:T 3715:— 3695:G 3692:M 3689:G 3654:( 3647:: 3643:@ 3561:G 3558:M 3555:G 3537:( 3521:G 3518:M 3515:G 3483:( 3465:( 3426:c 3423:/ 3390:C 3386:· 3382:T 3358:( 3344:: 3340:@ 3329:( 3322:: 3318:@ 3307:( 3288:( 3269:F 3265:- 3250:. 3229:( 3187:( 3102:( 3076:( 3059:( 3041:( 3022:( 3015:. 2989:( 2972:( 2944:( 2926:: 2922:@ 2896:v 2880:( 2860:v 2844:( 2816:( 2786:( 2761:v 2741:( 2718:v 2702:( 2670:v 2641:( 2579:( 2548:( 2458:( 2448:: 2444:@ 2405:( 2382:( 2358:( 2343:( 2290:) 2286:( 2284:/ 2267:) 2263:( 2261:/ 2247:( 2226:( 2183:, 2150:( 2106:( 2087:( 2073:( 2058:( 2034:( 2015:) 2013:c 2009:t 2005:u 2003:( 1983:( 1960:( 1916:c 1914:· 1912:t 1910:( 1904:— 1831:( 1816:( 1802:T 1767:( 1684:( 501:— 490:T 410:( 368:( 307:( 288:( 251:( 196:( 182:: 158:@ 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 76 - Knowledge

Index