Knowledge talk:Deletion process/Archive 12

3563:, thank you ! someone finally addressing the issue I'm pointing out (and btw I realized one very simple solution is to add a note under the Delete decision which states that if the text of the article name is Blue then the article has been recreated or undeleted and now exists, but if it is Red it is still Deleted and non-existent - the blue-red color is totally unintuitve and no one would no what this means unless they use wikipedia a lot or have read the instructions. I uploaded a screenshot here - I'm sure you know Google's pagerank or whatever algorithm it uses to show pages is very complex and depends on things like search history, profile of the user, location, many other factors - it may be hard to replicate. try opening a browser in private or invisible mode or whatever the case and if you have a vpn try different combinations of with and without the vpn. here's a screenshot of what the first two search results look like: 3327:

saying the page now exists or, after a relisting decision the final decision was Keep or after a DRV or whatever. the point here is the use case or whatever you call it is that a person googles: wikipedia BitConnect, the link comes up pointing to the BitConnect AfD which says there is no such page, reviewed, final decision is Deleted. Would it be so wrong to add a line above or below the final decision of Deleted to say there was another review and there was a decision to keep the page so people don't just walk away thinking there is no BitConnect page?

3583:

and it makes sense because many people were googleing it at that time. but I was actually googleing it on the 22 which is *after* the page was created, but I still got the link to the AfD instead of the actual page which is a bit odd. I'd also refer you to Fuzheado's talk page where all this stuff about re-creating the article was discussed. It's a good thing that Fuzheado went ahead and created the page since so many people were searching based on the recent spike in notability and media coverage.

3460:

article itself. Once someone clicks on the link in google, the page that comes up simply indicates the article was nomintated for deletion and the decision was to Delete. No indication this was subsequently changed. So a reader would simply assume the article does not exist. I don't understand why it would be so bad to have clear and correct information on the AfD page to simply state *that* AfD was decided finally as Delete, but also that the page now does exist per such and such a reason.

31: 684:

swayed by this -- but less experienced participants at Afd might be. It might even be seen as a form of canvassing. I believe we might need a statement that if comments are to be included in the relist template, they should be neutral as to desired outcome. Anyone agree? I should also add that I've never seen a real need to add comments to a relist template at all -- and this seems to be a fairly new thing which I believe may cause more problems than it solves.

3256:

not indicate anywhere that this decision was updated. It does contain a link to the original page, which is blue, but this would not indicate to most readers that the page was created in the end since the blue vs red coloring is not an intuitive, clear nor explicit indication that the page now exists and the AfD was overturned (whereas the text at the top of the page clearly stating the AfD was decided as Delete and that is final is clear)

2234:

participants and closer of that XfD. That is, in the XfD write "Look, there's an RfC on the subject and 12 out of 14 editors think it should be kept, and they have some wonderful arguments, go look! And I request that the closer of this XfD consider this" or something. It'd be a new thing, but new things are OK. I dunno if it'd be useful or effective, but who knows? No harm in trying it. You don't have to ask anyone's permission to do this.

1749:- does not exist. This demonstrates to me that not only do you not check the facts, you consider fact-checking to be childish - which is itself a childish attitude. At 02:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC) you claimed "they didn't appear to work", "they" here presumably being Article alerts and Deletion sorting. At 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC) I showed you how to get the AfD listed at Article alerts: but I see that the two banners that I mentioned have 1082:) has not said anything yet off-topic seems, well, off-topic. You raised this in multiple places, making FORUMSHOP a valid link. I will answer your repeated question, however, with another: How would some-one come across an RfC if they did not have the tools or experience to come across a MfD? At least MfD discussions are linked directly and prominently from whatever is being discussed. RfC's have no such requirement. 3541:. I didn't know that Afd pages were allowed to be indexed on Google. I've searched for all combinations of Knowledge and Bitconnect and the Afd page never came up on any of my searches. In fact, I even searched for the exact term "Knowledge:Articles for deletion/BitConnect" and the search still didn't show the Afd. I'm not saying you're mistaken (because, for example, on 17 January, the BitConnect Afd page had more than 816: 4061: 4874: 2224:, I don't think it is a good idea. It will cause rather a confusing mess. If the point is that you want to advertise a particular XfD, I mean there are various places you can go to advertise, as long as you're not canvassing. A neutral statement at a neutral venue such as the pump would be OK I guess. Some other places too I suppose. For an AfD you can increase the number of topics its under. 1838:. Your quest to ensure that everyone else that participates here achieves your "right" result is not going to happen. Your frequent misstatements and rephrasings of other editor's statements are not going to force reality to conform to your expectations. Leave this "debate" be and, oh, I don't know, maybe try to actually improve articles so that deletion is not a concern? Just a thought. 1988: 2070:, especially in test cases where a precedent is hoped for. A regular XfD may only be attended by a small number of people, without specialist knowledge of the topic or relevant policies, and unwilling to go into detail in terms of previous consensus or the implications of the decision. This is a recipe for semi-random outcomes, based on small samples, having far-reaching consequences. 2162:. Adopting a formal rule would prevent disputes (like the one that brought this all about), but as such disputes are extremely rare the benefit from the rule is minimal. Also, it's not inconceivable that situations might arise in future where an RfC might be appropriate on an XfD page, so we wouldn't want to have a priori precluded this from happening. – 298:, I did'nt mean to say that. A NAC should not be reverted by a non-admin, just as a non-admin should have no reason to revert a NAC. If a NAC is reverted by a non-admin, it probably should go straight to ANI, because someone is doing something wrong. The proper way to challenge an NAC is to talk to the closer first and open a DRV discussion second. -- 278:, although perhaps also not clear. It says that NACs can be overturned by an uninvolved admins or deletion review. If an involved discussion participant reverts an NAC closure (which they should not), anyone can restore it, even those who are involved, due to how blatantly incorrect such a revert would be. Where do our readings differ? ~ 448:(deletion review in the case of deletion discussions). If a closure is reopened otherwise, which is inappropriate, anyone except the closer may restore it. That aside, I would support doing away with or reforming the second bullet point, and would not support allowing involved administrators to overturn non-administrator closures. 3898:

It does use the word "anyone" but the top of the section specifically says "non-administrators who are registered (i.e. not IPs) may close discussions," so I do think clarification would be nice - and it would just add 2 words, so it certainly wouldn't hurt anything. But yeah, we probably should wait

3597:

Oh and one last thing - this probably is obvious but in case it isn't this is not a one of thing, this is likely a common occurence for articles that have been AfD'd but then experience a spike in media coverage. So this strange stuff about google indexing the AfD page, and about people getting to an

2440:

alludes to deletions which are more interesting than the average deletion because of a precedent that is to be set. Knowledge doesn't operate on stare decisis, so if it really is an interesting policy question that is bigger than one deletion discussion, a better approach for that would be an RfC on

2258:

I think your first paragraph is great - we shouldn't cram too much stuff into just this one discussion about an article. Your second paragraph describes an RfC on the question that the XfD is supposed to answer - I don't know, but it sounds a bit like forum shopping. We already have one discussion in

2202:

User:Enterprisey's AfD stats point is probably a good reason to simply say no. Why make it complicated. Close the AfD, link to the RfC, complete the RfC, and return to AfD is required with the RfC results. In contrast, I think there is less trouble with RfCs within WP:RMs, as happens sometimes, as

1366:

This thread is not about DRVs it's about RFCs. Presumably those tags aren't there because the editor who knew they belonged there didn't bother to add them, too busy perhaps. It strikes me that an Rfc might attract the attention of editors who not only know what tags to add, they even have spare time

4499:

Sometimes a page on a subject exists in both article space and draft space, typically because it was first created in draft space and submitted to AFC, and then copied or created in article space. (If the draft was accepted after the usual review process, the draft will be replaced by a redirect to

3459:

Ahh, thank you for the clarification about relistings. I am still confused why an AfD page would not indicate that subsequent to the Delete the page now exists. As indicated, this is quite confusing in cases such as this one in which google sometimes indexes the AfD page only, and does not index the

1207:

Why not? There is no deadline, after all. If the goal is truly to produce a high-quality encyclopedia, then timing is not an issue. While making one's case as well and as dispassionately as one can during an XfD is all well and good, sometimes they don't work out. Make a new set of arguments to a

633:

11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC) - By the way the revert was a response to that was inevitable because someone disputed the NAC - the closer reverted back and the close came right back to DRV. I think the weakness in the close was shown by the fact that after some further discussion the final close by

4122:

I have recently come across my profile with Knowledge and the information shown is false and incorrect. I am not notable enough to be on Knowledge in the first place. I would like my profile removed with immediate effect I have been in contact with authority’s regarding this issue as it’s breaching

1153:

forum is designed specifically to provide a second look from such editors. Creating new policy or procedure options to address singular examples is generally a bad idea. American legal circles use the phrase, "Bad facts make bad laws," specifically to warn against this type of policy alteration.

1111:

And, to continue your example, an editor such as that would then try to use an RfC as an end-around to appealing the MfD they missed? Is that the situation you are hypothesizing? Such an editor would best be advised to simply use the deletion appeals process already in place. This would especially

245:

We're making up rules as we go, someone late compared to actual practice. "If a participant reopens a non-admin closure, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure" is an instruction to edit war over a close. How about: "Reverted NACs should be reported to WP:ANI if an administrator

4539:

How do we ensure that there is a consistent result that adequately reflects the consensus of the community? I would say, first, that an AFD discussion is better publicized than an MFD discussion and should take precedence, and, second, that closers should be requested to address whether a deleted

3582:

I should add: I noticed that spike with thousand+ page views was exactly the day all the news about BitConnect started appearing (like all the coverage in major media, also at that time there was no BitConnect page, only the BitConnect AfD so it is likely that google pointed everybody to that page

3255:

How should the AfD page be updated in case an article is originally AfD'd to Delete, and then relisted and the new decision is Keep? Currently it seems the AfD page, at least in the case I'm looking at, indicates the decision was Delete, no further edits should be made to the AfD page etc. It does

4334:

So... can you insert it at the proper place then? Deletion venues would be my naive guess. Or, maybe it would be better to change the link at Twinkledoc to the existing deletion venue shortcuts? (Not sure if the WP:XFD#VENUE is used elsewhere, though it doesn't seem that way using Google). Thanks

3326:

do you mind pointing me to where you saw this? All I see is the AfD page that says the result is closed as Delete, but then I see the page actually exists, hence the confusion. Also do you or other wikipedians not see the possible confusion of not updating an AfD page with the current status just

2538:

I imagine you could find support for a bot that randomly pulls people from a list of interested persons to message about looking at an XfD with 0-1 !votes, or perhaps just recently relisted discussions. This could be separate from RfC and not interfere with the XfD process other than to neutrally

487:

be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving at least one good reason." Full stop. "Or by consensus at deletion review." Full stop. These two points preclude any other method for reopening a NAC including involved and uninvolved regular editors. So, why the "any

4920:

for example. The former was seemingly handled with an uncontroversial redirect, while the latter needs discretion in venue, at the least, because it may be controversial or not. "Never close a discussion as a wrong venue without opening a discussion at an appropriate one" would perhaps be better

4803:, you were given the wrong advice. DRV is one option, but so is getting an administrator to review. Sorry for any confusion you experienced. In this case, I don’t think many admins would overturn for the reasons I stated at AN, but did want to clarify that asking for admin review was acceptable. 3570:

I'm guessing what happened here is that the page was deleted, and then it was re-added so for a time, the only thing indexed was the AfD, so right now the actual page is there and google is correcting the database but hasn't gone through completely so in some strange cases the AfD still comes up

3463:

regarding this being discussed in more than one place, I originally posed the question on the AfD page itself (it has since been deleted) and also on the talk page, I was trying to get an answer about this specific page's deletion, but I thought if I asked here perhaps I could get a more general

1700:

If you let me get a quality result from this single Afd it will help me fix the entire PNT process, which at the moment appears to consist of massive amounts of effort for almost no positive result. Just waiting will probably end up with a "no consensus" result which is completely useless, and a

683:

encourages editors to give a reason for the relist, I think we should be advising editors about using the comment section of the template to appear to "winnow down" or predetermine the list of viable options going forward, including that of keep. Certainly experienced editors are unlikely to be

103:

There is a quiet change by Spartaz that has nothing to do with the previous discussion. He has removed the requirement that administrators must give at least one reason for re-opening an NAC. I noticed while reviewing the history for the above discussion that he has argued before that admins

2689:

a need does sometimes arise that can be handled alternatively. The need arises because many XfDs are an insufficiently broad set of editorial eyes and brains, and sometimes issues come up which are outside the XfD's scope (e.g. may affect the article title but is a CfD discussion, etc.). The

2233:

the XfD though. Why not? It's a wiki and most things are allowed. You can start an RfC on the article's talk page, or a project page, or at the pump, or any reasonable place on the question "Should article X be deleted?" and point to the RfC in the XfD for the attention and edification of the

1242:

You can take the above advice or you can reject it. I'm not going to change it if you keep asking the same question in different ways. It's clear you don't like it. That's fine. I'm just another editor like yourself; you don't have to listen to me if you don't want. It's also clear you feel

4782:

close that did not merit an administrator at least investigating it? The first administrator to respond seemed to believe they didn't have the authority (and so I cited the passage under discussion here). To which two non-admins responded, and the whole discussion was then closed by a second

3849:

Yes, because they are not technically "closing" the discussion (i.e. interpreting consensus) as a NAC - bots close discussions for already-deleted pages all the time, and it's not much different if an IP does it. However, they must stick with the point about "being sure to name the admin who

3836:

section here. At the top of the section, it says that IPs can't close discussions. However, at the bottom it says "anyone may close the discussion provided that the administrator's name and deletion summary are included in the closing rationale." So, are IPs able to close discussions if an

790:

the nomination is complete. Is there perhaps a prescience bot that could alert non-admin editors when they simply have it in mind to start an AfD, or could the Bot be tuned to display its message ASAP after the recreation of the article and not wait until yet another AfD is logged?

949:

XfDs are already seeking broader community input on deletion. They run for a set amount of time, are listed prominently, etc etc. There's no need for an RfC. Further, an RfC would be a tad disruptive to the XfD process because they usually run a month whereas an XfD runs a week. ~

2239:

I mean, It'd probably be better to just have the RfC point over to the XfD though. Just be sure you're not canvassing, that your pointers are neutrally worded -- "There is an Xfd in progress on article X, editors are invited to chime in" at a neutral place like the pump. If a

895:

have a different NOQUORUM standard per a large RfC a year ago. The default is for admins to evaluate them like PRODs per policy. They can relist if they think it would be controversial, but the intent of the RfC last year was to decrease NOQUORUM relistings.

3735:

But if we're not going to do the transwiki process, shouldn't we either make Wiktionary entries manually in appropriate cases, or try to turn the deletions into a stub article, rather than delete them? I think this need a very much wider discussion.

2388:

I'm not sure how this is even a question. By its very nature, an XfD is short and to the point, whereas an RfC can run up to and even exceed 30 days. An RfC which affects pages outside of those being nominated should not be held within an XfD.

923: 4720:". Apparently the closure by a non-admin is sacrosanct and cannot be undone by an administrator, so this page should reflect that the only option editors have is either the non-admin reversing themselves or going through the arduous process at 2690:

solution is to open an RfC at a more appropriate venue, and either defer the XfD's closure pending the RfC outcome, or close the XfD as mooted by the opening of the RfC, noting that a new XfD can be opened after the RfC closes, if necessary.

2326:

No, that is not what DRV is for. Ensuring sufficient participation, and ensuring all options are considered, is the responsibility of the participants, with a check by the closer. DRV is for gross closer failure, or gross process failure.

1746: 1371: 1636:, the question is "are people spending hours rescuing things that should be deleted anyway?". If the AFD result is a clear "keep" then it seems it was worth it, if clear "delete" then maybe not worth it, and think about reforming WP:PNT. 4907: 3394: 2049:

is by its very nature a "request for comment", albeit one with rather narrow boundaries - we are inviting people to comment on whether or not the page should be kept/merged/redirected/incubated/transwikied/renamed/userfied/deleted/etc.

2539:

encourage people to look at XfDs that are wavering on participation. RfCs within an XfD don't make too much sense, though, and they cause problems due to existing tools, bots, and the differences in time scale between XfDs and RfCs. ~

3307:

As I explained on the talk page: the original close stands, and there is nothing special about this article. It was deleted originally, so that AfD will continue to say delete, as it shows how it was closed by the original closer.

4761:

close should be contested at DRV, not to change this policy. I think the current wording fairly reflects the current consensus, e.g. I have reverted obviously bad non-admin closes several times in the past without controversy.

4500:

the article.) If deletion is proposed, because the topic is not notable, or is covered by another article, what are the procedures and guidelines to ensure that a single discussion covers the subject (and is not likely to be (

1247:. Feeling like a victim of such attacks will neither gain you anything nor help build an encyclopedia. Neither is pretending that there is a substantive, structural issue here going to salve such feelings. Best of luck. 3879:

implies that anyone can do it. However, this is just my interpretation of what I feel is meant by the text, so while it might be worth adding in an "(including IPs)" to that sentence, I might be completely wrong and IPs

1900:

I didn't say "different" at all, I intended it to be read as "in addition". Also, to your question "what project(s) exactly?" - I have already answered that, at 11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC). Please note that the spelling is

3126:

Indeed, I merely looked back to the last version not edited by SMcCandlish; so I have amended my post. But it reinforces my point that the two words have been moved from one context to another, so changing the meaning.

1291:, I'd really like more input on that AFD because it will answer the question "was all the effort at WP:PNT worth it". However if I put an RfC tag on it folks will be like "no forum shopping, take it to DRV" I imagine. 1459:. You can say "stay on topic" all you want when another editor points out your nonconstructive behavior. Not one single editor is obligated to follow your request. If you call another editor a 7 year old, that seems 4671:

it appears that administrators do not have the ability to overturn a non-admin closure of a deletion discussion. The !voting seemed to run 5 to 1 against administrator involvement. To that end, I changed this line:

2589:

So, the Feedback Request Service for (randomly-selected low-participation) AfDs. Somehow I feel like someone's proposed this already, but it seems like a pretty good idea. After this discussion is over I'll start a

3144:

Seems time for this table cell to be edited to convey what it's meant to say, and I think the para breaks are a good idea in this sea of punctuation marks. Please see the current version of the project page for my

2140: 699:

I see that J947 has graciously amended his relist statement in the above case to make it clearer that redirect or delete are not the only remaining available options. I still wonder if the current statement at

3199:, who closed the discussion, might have missed doing this. She'll obviously get this done. In such cases, in general, you can directly contact the closing administrator before posting anywhere else. Thanks, 1807:

doesn't exactly have wide exposure. RfC's however do have wide exposure I believe. You are saying that a different wikiproject(s) tag might generate wide exposure, what project(s) exactly? And how do I know

97: 1243:

personally aggrieved. Speaking as a fellow editor that has not had any previous interaction and thus had no preconceived ideas about your editing prior to today, I urge you to put those feelings aside and

3482:

I am pretty knew to the nuts and bolts of wikipedia - I genuinely see this as a UX bug / flaw and I am trying to help. I posted in a couple of places hoping to find someone who would explain the rationale

718:

Actually, there's an additional problem with the guidline. Relist comments are encouraged, either inserted in the template or in addition, but right now those two elements are not stated together. I think

3766:

should not be relisted again and again. The usual process is one single relisting. In the exceptional case where a debate should be relisted again, in order to provide a third (or further) round, then...

2370:

of course not. I wondered why on earth there might be a need to ask whether there should be a drawn-out RfC inside an XfD, but I see it is due to Siuenti—more very poor use of community time and energy.

1223:

So don't get neutral opinions, get the wrong answer, go to DRV and make a new set of arguments to a new set of editors? When the only thing wrong with the old set of arguments was they couldn't overcome

1097:

For example, someone might share a certain sense of humor and be watching the RfC listings but not MFD, and not realize that a deletion discussion is taking place where being unfunny is a criterion.

4940: 113: 1492:

If you really want to "benefit the project and move the discussion forward," you'd stop complaining about an essay that was deleted over a month ago now. Allow me, if you will, to refer you to a

4235:

These “#” shortcuts may work, but they are not real. A url cannot have a #, it is a special character. You can’t redirect this not-shortcut. The only thing you can do is re-introduce “venue” to

2143:)? No way, RfC's can be open for a long time (e.g. 30 days) and an XfD shouldn't be held open for it; if there is a serious RfC that will impact it, the XfD should be revisited after the RFC. — 3345:

where you can see the delete and restore events with log summaries. I don't think there was an official review in this case. But you can see the discussion on the AFD page after it was closed.

3827: 3542: 3843: 488:

editor other than the closer may restore the closure" restriction against undoing a supposedly improper action? Just to prevent edit warring between the closer and the involved editor? --

3293:

should probably be the normal process for this sort of case. So we may not need to invent new policy. However recreation is quite common, hopefully addressing the issues raised at AFD.

3169: 1951: 1342: 3598:

AfD page that says it is deleted but not clearly saying the page now exists is likely something that happens fairly regularly for newly noteworthy items that were previously deleted.

3189: 2280:, not a good idea. As one of the current maintainers of AfD Stats (and the author of XfD Stats), this would be hell in a bucket to parse. Also, why not just wait for the XfD to end? 4525:

in draft space, which may be called Keep in Draft Space, or Draftify, or whatever, if the subject is likely to be notable but the page is for any reason not ready for article space.

3690:

Do you think I should remove it again? I only added it because I came here looking for the definition of Transwiki since it was being used recently, and thought I should add it.

2177:

The AfD is already well-participated, and there is a division on lines of wider project consequence. i.e. the consequences of a decision go well beyond the articles in question;

1614:

Of course they work. You need some patience. You can't expect a flood of people flocking to your run-of-the-mill AfD at once. A few editors is standard for this sort of thing. --

2493: 3782:

Comingling the number of times relisted with the "round", e.g. Round 3 = relisting No. 2, adds more confusion. Can you explain what you feel is unclear in the current wording?—

2436:. It amounts to an attention grab - people who could have watched XfDs if they had wanted to are being bothered anyway because someone wants more attention to his deletion. 2743: 406:- Exactly. Prior to that edit, and the further edit which I indicated above, the parameters were clearly limited to admins. Hence the ambiguity was added by a single editor. 767: 732: 713: 4668: 3864:

In that case, should we specify within the page, "If an administrator has deleted a page (including by speedy deletion) anyone (including IPs) may close the discussion"?--

3270:

In any case I think there there should be a clear indication, in the case that an originally AfD-Deleted page is relisted and changed to Keep that the page is now Keep'd.

3017:,"). You have negated a phrase by (among other things) inserting a colon where none was desirable, and splitting the sentence into two paragraphs to change its meaning. -- 1019:

I thought the whole point of RfCs was to seek wider input when discussion has ground to a halt (because someone dragged the thread off-topic, as you appear to be doing).

3170: 611:

is an AfD in which Spartaz has posted in which he doesn't comment about the use of the text from WP:NACD to reclose the participant-opened NAC. This is the discussion,

3822: 859: 4902: 4865: 4703:. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. Editors reopening discussions are advised to notify the original closer. 4685:. If this happens, take it only as a sign that the decision was not as obvious as you thought. Editors reopening discussions are advised to notify the original closer. 2006: 693: 4917: 4744: 4650: 3240: 2771: 3505:, that would be a clear indication that the page doesn't exist, presumably as a consequence of deletion. We don't amend closed AfDs to reflect subsequent events. -- 3354: 3302: 1701:

result with low participation is hardly any better, especially when existing policies, guidelines and/or precedents are not being applied very strictly by !voters.

1112:

be the advisable if the editor in question was, hypothetically speaking, recently returned from a block over deletion discussion and guideline modification issues.

886: 786:. The boilerplate text suggests reviewing the past AfD's before re-submitting. However.... if like me you are not an admin, you have no sight of the old AfDs until 4579: 3719: 3699: 3685: 3447: 3336: 3317: 2183:

The RfC is specifically focused on the decision to delete articles. Otherwise, it would be better to close the AfD, and go down the RfC path outside of the AfD.

905: 133: 4812: 4553: 2268: 638: 597: 588: 4169: 1946: 4826: 3905: 3893: 3870: 3859: 3628: 3517: 3492: 3473: 2711: 2450: 2354: 2336: 2293: 2253: 840: 624: 169: 147: 3502: 2626: 4843: 4403: 4322: 4299: 4277: 3607: 3592: 3555: 2681: 2603: 2428: 2321: 2307: 2212: 2197: 2131: 2097: 2062: 4885: 4795: 4773: 4417: 4382: 4248: 4230: 4208: 3797: 3227: 3209: 2550: 2488: 2380: 2149: 1054:

At the risk of repeating myself "Miscellaneous for deletion are listed prominently? How would someone come across them? " and please try to stay on-topic.

1014: 255: 4544:

to use. If there are discussions in progress in both AFD and MFD, is it appropriate to close the MFD discussion by bundling it into the AFD discussion?

3289:

disagreed with the close, then undeleted it. Then the article was deleted again with G4, and then recreated again. This would not be the normal process.

3279: 3157: 2664: 2570: 2522: 2508: 2475: 2411: 2180:

A neutral person, preferably two people, agree to the neutral, focused RfC question. RfCs do not work best with poorly worded, rambling biased questions.

2166: 2079: 1966: 1933: 1919: 1884: 1865: 1848: 1821: 1505: 1487: 1473: 1447: 1433: 1414: 1400: 1383: 1361: 1275: 1257: 1237: 1218: 1168: 1144: 1122: 1106: 1092: 1063: 1049: 1028: 4630: 4488: 4140: 4124: 2799: 2584: 2032: 1321:

be triggered by the use of suitable infoboxes, but it's best to ensure that the article's talk page bears appropriate WikiProject banners. So, is either

975: 961: 219: 152:

It used to read "giving their reasons in full"; that was changed to "giving at least one good reason". I think at least "giving their reasoning" is due.

4073: 4033: 4004: 3978: 2738:

when they're provided by wikiprojects) would be MfD, but maybe there's a prior dicussion centralizing them all in one place. I know for a fact that the

2643: 2114: 346: 328: 307: 269: 260:

So you're proposing any editor who is a participant can reopen a NAC without having to go to del review? That will require rejigging the first point. --

4465: 3139: 3040: 2717: 1804: 1780: 417: 397: 289: 240: 3961: 3791: 3776: 1980: 1710: 1695: 1681: 1667: 1645: 1623: 1609: 1595: 1573: 1559: 1463:

off-topic, to say the least. No editor is required to agree to your terms of the discussion as a prerequisite for participating in such discussions.

514: 510:

I have put back the existing cinsensus as there was no consensus for the change and, as noted here, it was contradictory and encouraged edit warring.

4832: 4800: 4784: 4752: 4733: 4639: 3428: 3366: 2726:

cluded from both MfD and TfD, leaving nowhere to propose their deletion. It surely has to be one or the other. I would think that userboxes in the

333:

Cut it. It is not that it is true or untrue, it is the sort of thing that is generally good advice, but it is serving no useful purpose. Advice at

4444: 3747: 608: 497: 465: 183: 1158:

process to appeal to a wider section of the community. There are enough byzantine processes here without further complicating deletion processes.

845: 656: 4432:

what happens if a user disagrees with the ruling when closure is made by a non-admin? is there any way to contest or to appeal any such closeure?

3121: 1874:

but calling another editor a child is not? I'm beginning to think that you may not have the same understanding of either term the rest of us do.

138:

It could put back but what admin is just silently going to reopen a NAC? You'll at least get a couple words in the edit summary like "rv sock". --

4912:

Often, it seems that the current venue is obviously inappropriate but another discussion may be undue or perhaps less than black and white. Take

225:

Please be aware that the inconsistent verbiage (the second example you show above) was added by an editor, without discussion or consensus, with

806: 4450:

The procedure for disputing a close is the same whether the closer is in admin or not: first talk to them then, if you can't agree, take it to

4435:

I appreciate any help. if and when someone replies, please be sure to tag me in any reply, by using the template {{ping|sm8900}} . thanks! --

720: 561:

Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Knowledge. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor

226: 4681:

be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning; or by consensus at

4615: 3833: 1795: 1775: 3612:

There should be no need to add a special note about the link colour. It's a longstanding Knowledge feature, and is not peculiar to AfDs. See

2617:

Per all the other nos. This is a ridiculous idea that would allow one user to elevate a particular xfd above others. That's not a good idea.

752:, please keep in mind that this is a Knowledge administration template, and should not be used to give priority to one's own desired outcome. 646: 246:

is not already involved". I think that even if an INVOLVED administrator objects to an NAC, it should be unclosed for an admin to close. --

203:

be reopened by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving at least one good reason, or by consensus at deletion review.

4290:

at the desired target should do it, however I think you want “Venue” to appear explicitly so that the redirection makes sense to the user. —

1540: 1300: 1201: 943: 801: 4221:

Apparently, #VENUE was once valid, but I can't do the necessary edit to make it valid once more. Thank you for your assistance in advance.

4112: 1346: 4132: 3660: 3413: 193: 4199:

It’s not a proper shortcut. WP:XFD is, but #VENUE is just an instruction to the browser to search for “venue”. Where did you find it? —

3498: 3260: 1686:

Then be patient and wait for the AfD to resolve. I can assure you that a single AfD is not going to make or break an entire process. --

89: 84: 72: 67: 2634:. Well explained above, plus mixing process would actually dilute them both, ultimatelly risking less attention to all discussions. - 704:

should not offer some guidance on using this template in a neutral way. If there are no objections, I may try to formulate a line....

4913: 4783:

administrator who again pointed to DRV as the correct venue with no indication any attempt was made to look at the issue presented. —

4344: 4193: 4150: 2575:

This bot could put random re-listed afd nominations in front of people who opt in, maybe let them choose their favourite categories.

1478:

Indeed, you are not obliged to stay on topic, but that would be to the benefit of the project so we can move the discussion forward.

59: 2042: 995: 782:

When an article is listed at AfD, a bot turns up and puts a message on the talk page listing previous AfDs and their outcome as at

4494: 4097: 3755: 679:

and he chose to remove the comment, which was then reinstated by J947 at the next relist. I think this is a worrisome trend. While

3214:

Ah thanks, didn't even think about contacting the closing admin. I guess that's what I get for editing at work a befuddled brain.

615:

that led NeilN to start a discussion about the use of RFPP, after which participants were left on their own to attract an admin.

3943: 3263:

the reason I bring this up is that google searches for: bitconnect wikipedia sometimes land on this AfD page, not on the actual

2158:

about that. Starting an RfC within an XfD discussion is generally a bad idea, but this naturally comes out of the application of

3670:, indicating that transwiki is largely obsolete. It is unfortunate that two closely related pages have developed – this one and 337:

telling NAC-ers to not edit war over their closes, but to take challenges to WP:AN, or DRV or MR, would be more appropriate. --

3567:

I'd like to add that I don't think AfD should be removed from googles search, they are sometimes important and useful info imo.

3250: 2482: 1423:

attacks and personal animosity has now posted a personal attack. As Yoda might say: "The irony, strong it is with this one."

4427: 3934:

with discussion in old log when reposting, but Deletion process says we should not remove, I am confused, what do you think?

3809:

lists articles that have been noncontroversially speedy deleted while in AfD as a reason for a procedural close and links to

4388: 4662:

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

2742:

does not presently support additional namespaces without substituting and editing it; I've proposed that this be fixed, at

4861:

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

1037:

widely advertised. Also, what do you mean by "because someone dragged the thread off-topic, as you appear to be doing"? --

3667: 4310: 4867: 4558:

By the way, these concerns are prompted by a particularly contentious discussion that is now being discussed at all of

676: 4609: 3176:

Draft was closed as delete but it hasn't been deleted yet. Any admin want to help or should I just slap a G11 on it?

2785: 2761: 2701: 876: 4621:

I've deleted the contradictory page as that is neither official policy/guideline/procedure or community referenced.

3416:, which has been relisted twice as of today - cannot occur for an AfD once that is closed; they are not recorded in 2536:

If you want to encourage more people to comment, anyone is certainly able to set up an XfD feedback request service.

1924:

Alright, one of those debates got 7 participants, that would be cool. Let's see if we can break the tie at the AfD.

4840: 4792: 4741: 4647: 1940: 3762:

in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice. Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time

4570:, but I am not asking about that controversy, because I know that AN can deal properly with any conduct issues. 4356: 4149:. There, you will find directions concerning the methods that are available to you. There is a section entitled " 2244:

of people started doing it could become annoying. Or maybe it'd be fine. Let us kjnow how it worked out for you!

2094: 1881: 1845: 1502: 1470: 1430: 1254: 1215: 1165: 1119: 1089: 1079: 562: 47: 17: 2937: 2203:

RM discussions are often wider ranging over many articles, and with many more possible outcomes than an AfD. --

3837:

administrator has already deleted the page(s) in question? This should probably be specified within the page.--

3705: 2969: 2259:

the XfD, and seeing all the previous comments (not just half of them) would probably benefit new participants.

1324: 634:

an admin was a merge not a keep. Its 2 years ago. I don't remember what I did yesterday so what is your point?

440:

Under the current wording: Closures should only be reopened by an uninvolved administrator or by consensus at

3969:, forgive me being lazy and not digging through the guidelines, but what are we not supposed to be removing? 991: 927: 850:

A longterm problem in wording NOQUORUM is that AfDs have a different standard for NOQUORUM than other fora.

612: 4145:

You don't state which page you refer to. But we don't delete pages except within the processes described at

2513:

At the time I didn't realize making a separate RfC and linking was an option... if someone had just said...

1438:

Stay on topic please, if you want to start a new thread about how awesome my irony is use my talk page ktx.

4921:

worded as "In most cases, a discussion should be opened by the closer in the appropriate venue." Thoughts?

3237: 2672:, may you please close this discussion as "withdrawn and clear consensus against this proposal"? Thanks. -- 1999: 1332: 1154:

As there is already an appeals process in place, having RfC on MfD's is essentially asking to institute an

913: 777: 4932: 4087: 3695: 3656: 2976: 2919: 1131:

the MfD might have attracted eyes of neutral editors with an opinion on the humor which wasn't swayed by

763: 728: 709: 689: 457: 389: 161: 4366: 2298:

The XfD might end with "no consensus", with very low participation, or without considering all options.

4584: 4361: 4262: 4236: 4146: 3992: 3950: 820: 808: 206:

If a participant reopens a non-admin closure, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure.

38: 3987:. Deletion process says we should not remove original discussion from old log. So I suppose to remove 3267:

page and so people would end up thinking that BitConnect has no wikipedia page/the page was deleted.

4888:

until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

4700: 4682: 4575: 4549: 3810: 3799: 3671: 3350: 3298: 1405:

Are you like 7 years old? Look at the AFD for what it was listed under and how difference that made.

855: 620: 584: 109: 210:

These statements seem inconsistent. Can I get clarification of when a non-admin can reopen a NAC? --

2912: 1208:

new set of editors at DRV. Otherwise, we are just being too sensitive about "our" contributions.

2017: 3233: 3196: 2722:

I was jazzing up that table with some additional info, and noticed that userboxes are said to be

2419:

Just post the RfC in one of the the normal places and post a comment linking to it in the XfD. --

552: 4020:, which is the opposite of what you're saying. For CfD, the original listing gets replaced by {{ 3045:

RR64 has an incorrect "before" to demonstrate the problem; the original text was the following:

1564:

Mireille Issa is at AFD and I would like to put an RFC tag on it to get more input (see above).

4808: 4593: 4512:, and sometimes of both. As I see it, there are three main possible results as to notability: 4128: 3691: 3652: 3419: 3400: 3313: 2944: 1310:

get that DRV speedy closed for forum shopping. DRV is only for use when an XfD has been closed.

1244: 901: 759: 724: 705: 685: 373: 4603: 4351: 4046: 4021: 3929: 3923: 3818: 3603: 3588: 3576: 3545:). But could you please give the google search link that led you to this conclusion? Thanks, 3488: 3469: 3332: 3275: 2925: 2758: 2698: 2599: 2446: 2350: 2317: 2289: 2264: 2249: 1149:"Might have" is a slim hook to hang this example on. If neutral editors are looked-for, the 873: 3501:

the name of the page is blue, this indicates that the page exists - if it were red, as with

2174:. Permissible, not encouraged, in some cases, subject to caveats. These caveats might be: 926:? In this case I think the wider community might have found it funny enough to squeeze into 4836: 4788: 4737: 4643: 4571: 4545: 4175: 4117: 3346: 3323: 3294: 3221: 3183: 2930: 2622: 2342: 1773:. Of these, the first will not trigger Article alerts, but the second will; and so the AfD 1419:

So the editor that has complained vociferously that "their" article was deleted because of

1155: 851: 616: 580: 377: 105: 4908:

Procedural closes due to inappropriate venue: mandated new discussion at appropriate venue

8: 4399: 4378: 4318: 4295: 4273: 4244: 4204: 4165: 3806: 3624: 3513: 3443: 3342: 3135: 3103: 3036: 3025: 3014: 2984: 2863: 2677: 2504: 2424: 2403: 2332: 2208: 2193: 2127: 2091: 2058: 2028: 1962: 1915: 1878: 1842: 1791: 1672:

Well yeah, but this article being kept or not would help tell me what to ask in the RfC.

1499: 1467: 1427: 1396: 1357: 1251: 1212: 1192:

So if "neutral editors are looked-for", one must wait until the !vote has been resolved?

1162: 1116: 1086: 1073: 1045: 1010: 999: 836: 828: 755: 342: 303: 251: 119: 2559:, since he may be interested in that idea, given the number of XfD tools he works on. ~ 754:

How does this sound to people? If this meets with approval, I may consider adding it to

651:

I've begun to notice a practice at Afd relistings of relist notices bearing the comment

4822: 4413: 4340: 4226: 4189: 4029: 3974: 3917: 3889: 3855: 2376: 1902: 1895: 1754: 1655: 1338: 966:

Miscellaneous for deletion are listed prominently? How would someone come across them?

544: 428: 361: 4018:(this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log 2750:

pages into TfD's scope). So that may mean that MfD is the intended/traditional venue.

1313:

There are legitimate ways of bringing an AfD to a broader audience, and these include

667:. It had also been added to a different Afd by a different editor -- an adminstrator, 4804: 4768: 4622: 4483: 4460: 4306: 4106: 3901: 3866: 3839: 3787: 3714: 3680: 3548: 3424:, only on the AfD discussion page itself, whatever the subsequent outcome of the AfD. 3309: 3202: 3152: 3107: 2990: 2867: 2657: 2580: 2518: 2471: 2303: 2163: 2075: 1929: 1861: 1817: 1706: 1677: 1641: 1605: 1583: 1579: 1569: 1536: 1483: 1443: 1410: 1379: 1341:? If not, why not? If it does have these banners, the AfD will be listed by a bot at 1314: 1296: 1271: 1233: 1197: 1140: 1102: 1059: 1024: 985: 971: 939: 897: 4718:

by an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning;

4597: 4589: 4440: 4408:

Ok so I replaced the shortcut used over at Twinkle. Hope that works for everybody?

4218: 4181: 4093: 4069: 4009: 4000: 3957: 3939: 3814: 3599: 3584: 3572: 3532: 3484: 3465: 3409: 3361: 3328: 3271: 2958: 2905: 2891: 2753: 2693: 2595: 2556: 2492:, which clearly shows you starting an RfC within (what was then) an ongoing AfD at 2442: 2346: 2313: 2285: 2281: 2260: 2245: 868: 701: 680: 4817:

Agreed. And for the record, I reversed the close linked in the opening statement.

1456: 931: 4285: 4256: 3772: 3644: 3638: 3479: 3432: 3390: 3216: 3178: 2639: 2618: 2159: 2141:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shelby Billingham/sandbox (2nd nomination)

1493: 746: 3006:

The two words "excluding redirects" belong to the preceding text ("Pages in the

46:

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

4893: 4541: 4532: 4501: 4392: 4371: 4314: 4291: 4266: 4240: 4200: 4158: 4055:(this does not apply at Categories for discussion and Redirects for discussion) 3617: 3506: 3454: 3436: 3128: 3117: 3029: 3018: 2951: 2795: 2673: 2669: 2591: 2497: 2420: 2328: 2204: 2189: 2123: 2088: 2051: 2021: 1995: 1955: 1908: 1875: 1839: 1784: 1496: 1464: 1424: 1389: 1350: 1248: 1209: 1159: 1113: 1083: 1069: 1038: 1003: 832: 824: 338: 314: 299: 247: 4540:

article should be deleted in draft space or kept in draft space, and how much

3651:

outcome to the common outcomes table. I hope these are useful clarifications.

521: 4818: 4727: 4721: 4563: 4559: 4509: 4505: 4451: 4409: 4336: 4222: 4185: 4154: 4040: 4025: 3984: 3970: 3885: 3851: 3743: 3386: 3382: 3341:

On the AFD page there is a link labelled "logs". If you click this you go to

3290: 3286: 2898: 2777: 2560: 2540: 2372: 2144: 2046: 2013: 1768: 1651: 1633: 1528: 1288: 1150: 951: 919: 478: 441: 407: 368: 334: 279: 230: 123: 3538:"google searches for: bitconnect wikipedia sometimes land on this AfD page" 2744:

Template talk:Template for discussion#Parameter to change "Template:" prefix

4763: 4711: 4567: 4478: 4455: 4102: 3877:

If an administrator has deleted a page...anyone may close the discussion...

3783: 3708: 3674: 3560: 3146: 2739: 2654: 2576: 2514: 2467: 2437: 2395: 2299: 2071: 1925: 1857: 1829: 1813: 1760: 1736: 1702: 1673: 1637: 1601: 1565: 1532: 1479: 1439: 1406: 1375: 1292: 1267: 1229: 1193: 1136: 1098: 1055: 1020: 981: 967: 935: 795: 635: 630: 594: 593:

Since it was disputed it obviously had no consensus. Don't be such a tool.

511: 445: 3764:... Such a sentence not so clear and should be replaced by something like 2466:, simply pointing to the XfD from outside would seem to be a better idea. 4472: 4436: 4065: 3996: 3966: 3953: 3935: 1870:

So, just for the record, calling another editor quixotic is an off topic

1578:

That doesn't make any sense. RFC tags are for talk pages. Have you tried

1453: 930:, while the specific consensus against it seems to have been a teeny bit 670: 3389:

had occurred, that would also be recorded similarly. Should the article

2746:(which has to happen regardless, because of the RfC putting deletion of 4924: 4519:

in article space, if the subject is notable and is adequately verified.

3768: 3264: 2995: 2884: 2635: 2106: 1687: 1659: 1615: 1587: 1551: 1546:

That seems a bit off topic, I thought we're supposed to be discussing

489: 451: 435: 403: 383: 320: 295: 275: 261: 211: 175: 155: 139: 3397:

and if that closes as "keep", that fact would also be recorded in the

3343:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Log&page=BitConnect

1765:(which should not have been used directly, per its documentation) and 865:

So, just add a sentence clarifying that? Seems like an easy fix. :-)

98:

Do admins no longer need to give a reason for their re-opening of NAC?

3613: 3113: 2791: 662: 1856:/ off topic, just for a change. Bonus points for literary allusion. 4596:

about where two sets of guidelines seem to contradict each other.—

4531:

from article space and draft space, with any of various degrees of

3738: 3643:

I have added a shortcut link to the page for the existing shortcut

3427:

Anyway, why is this being discussed in two places (the other being

3112:, which does clearly indicate the location of user boxes at MFD. -- 1952:

Knowledge:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Article alerts

1343:

Knowledge:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Article alerts

4045:

I agree your saying. But CfD relist is similar to RfD relist (See

3813:. That case is however not listed there. Shouldn't it be added? -- 2341:

Good point, you're right. (This is what happens when I don't read

1741:

You called me "7 years old" when I pointed out that the page that

4918:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 23#La Scapigliata

4638:

Apparently it was a misunderstanding, nothing more to see here. —

3760:

At "Closing discussions that run their full time", one can read:

3381:

which is all that is required for an article that is deleted via

4092:

I think there's a list of old AfD relists, but I can't find it (

737:

Okay, going back to my original concern, I've now added a line:

3000:

namespace that have a local description page but no local file.

2874:

namespace that have a local description page but no local file.

2730:

namespace would be TfD, and those in other namespaces (usually

2494:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Banco de Ponce (disambiguation)

2480:

I got the idea because the action that kicked all this off was

122:

requires them to explain why they took that action if asked. ~

4873: 3828:

IPs closing discussions for articles have already been deleted

3564: 3285:

This looks nothing to do with relisting, but that one admin

1747:

list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

1372:

list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions

3395:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/BitConnect (2nd nomination)

3171:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Hakim Ghulam Rasool

675:. In that case I raised a concern on his user talk page at 1033:

Yes, for threads that are not widely advertised. But XfDs

994:) has not mentioned is that this was already discussed at 4881: 4699:

be reopened by the closer themselves; or by consensus at

2087:

for all the reasons already given in great detail above.

1306:

If you start a DRV whilst the AFD is still open you will

1266:

considerations, just for a change. Thanks for playing :)

4391:

seems to be the most logical place to add the anchor. --

1632:

AfD to get the "right answer" because it is relevant to

783: 4886:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#XfD

4880:

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect

3949:

If no one comment or oppose in 48 hours, I will edit

3503:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Pericent Technologies

4757:

The outcome of that discussion was to tell you that

4504:)? Sometimes there is a nomination of the draft at 4153:", which is sometimes used for a page that has been 3232:

Thanks for the catch, that was an XfD closer fail. ♠

2496:. Please note, my name is Redrose64, not RedRose. -- 2464:

not sure where RedRose came up with that idea anyway

2122:

we are already using the XfD to soliciate comments.

891:

We've clarified this already, and made tweaks. AfDs

677:

User_talk:Kurykh#AFD_relisting:_Tourism_in_Ahmedabad

3926:today. The instructions says it should be replaced 2788:, regardless of the namespace in which they reside. 1586:? Those are relevant ways to "advertise" an AfD. -- 1370:However, this particular Afd was already listed at 4051:(this does not apply at Categories for discussion) 1805:Knowledge:WikiProject Women writers/Article alerts 1781:Knowledge:WikiProject Women writers/Article alerts 3464:answer about wikipedia's processes thanks again! 118:I would oppose that change, but I also note that 3989:this does not apply at Categories for discussion 1834:, is that you are becoming Knowledge's very own 1388:Of course it didn't. The page does not exist. -- 657:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Rogue (musician) 4389:Knowledge:Deletion process#Deletion discussions 3884:be doing so (i.e. let's wait for other input). 2229:As far as I am concerned, you can start an RfC 2043:Knowledge talk:Requests for comment#RFC an AFD 1783:- which doesn't exactly have wide exposure. -- 1374:and that didn't seem to make much difference. 996:Knowledge talk:Requests for comment#RFC an AFD 918:Why should it be against the rules to start a 376:seems to be where it originates from. Perhaps 1262:Heh, it looks like someone's being swayed by 1127:In this particular hypothetical case, an RfC 319:Okay, so why have the second point at all? -- 3408:Please do not confuse relisting with either 3371:{{old AfD multi|date=17 October 2017|result= 2993:(regardless of namespace); and files in the 2345:before giving my opinion on DRV's purpose.) 1347:Knowledge:WikiProject Lebanon/Article alerts 4631:Non-admin closures and administrator review 3478:Also, I should add I was not familiar with 2594:discussion if I don't get objections here. 2139:"within" it? Like inside of (random page: 1826:So what every other editor is telling you, 1600:But they didn't appear to work. See above. 4016:removed from the log for its original date 4014:When relisting a discussion, it should be 3499:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/BitConnect 3261:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/BitConnect 3259:here is the example that brought me here: 1068:Repeating a request to stay on-topic when 819:You are invited to join the discussion at 4914:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Akelare 1654:, the correct place to do so would be at 1494:widely-supported and well-accepted essay. 4098:Knowledge:Dashboard/Relisted AfD debates 3668:Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_policy#Transwiki 2870:(regardless of namespace); files in the 846:WP:NOQUORUM variation depending on forum 4364:from around 11:04, 19 April 2011 (i.e. 4100:lists relists by topic, not by date. -- 4049:), so what should we do next? Removing 629:Nice job personalising the discussion. 14: 4155:nominated for deletion with discussion 3834:Non-administrators closing discussions 3412:or deletion review. Relistings - like 3028:) 21:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC) amended 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4103:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 1650:If you want to make an RFC regarding 1527:Try to keep up, we are talking about 647:Guideline on relist template comments 519:Here is what WP:Consensus states, in 4658:The following discussion is closed. 4624:Lourdes 03:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC) 4058: 3322:OK, thanks all for the explanation, 2534:. The XfD itself solicits comments. 2012:Should it be permissible to start a 758:, too, as it would clearly pertain. 274:I believe this isn't contradictory, 25: 4123:personal information about myself. 2790:MFD has nothing to the contrary. -- 194:Restoring participant-reverted NACs 174:I like "giving their reasoning". -- 23: 4872: 2462:isn't such a good idea after all, 24: 4951: 4716:elected to revert my removal of " 4057:. I am happy to hear your advice 3385:and subsequently recreated. If a 1812:how much exposure they generate? 922:on a deletion discussion such as 4857:The discussion above is closed. 4495:Article and Draft Both Nominated 4096:) redirects here, not helplful. 4059: 3756:Listed twice or relisted twice ? 2879:This is what you altered it to: 2784:: Userboxes should be listed at 2718:Issue in "Deletion venues" table 1986: 814: 721:my copyedit makes things clearer 563:can be assumed to have consensus 104:shouldn't need to explain why. 29: 4884:. The discussion will occur at 4180:Please fix this broken target: 1981:RfC on holding RfCs within XfDs 18:Knowledge talk:Deletion process 4508:, sometimes of the article at 4360:; so logically, if we look at 4113:10:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC) 3571:instead of the article itself 3251:Relisted AfD that ends up Keep 924:Knowledge:Diffs are for Stiffs 831:) 07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC) -- 655:. It's currently displayed at 13: 1: 4778:OK... what was special about 4489:19:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 4466:19:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 4445:19:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC) 4428:question re non-admin closure 4217:Answering with a shortcut :) 4151:Deletion requested by subject 3110:(regardless of namespace);... 2443:Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) 639:11:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 625:02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 598:11:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 589:00:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 515:06:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 498:03:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 466:03:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 418:04:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 398:03:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 347:04:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 329:03:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 308:03:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 290:03:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 270:03:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 256:02:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 241:02:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 220:01:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC) 184:03:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 170:03:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 148:03:19, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 134:02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 114:02:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC) 4616:20:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC) 4580:00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC) 4554:00:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC) 4418:11:08, 29 October 2018 (UTC) 4404:23:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 4383:23:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 4345:22:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 4323:08:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 4300:08:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 4278:08:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 4249:08:41, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 4231:08:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC) 4209:09:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC) 4194:08:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC) 3629:14:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 3608:01:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 3593:01:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 3556:13:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3518:12:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3493:11:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3474:11:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3448:10:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3355:02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3337:02:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3318:01:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3303:01:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3280:00:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC) 3241:08:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC) 3228:03:24, 10 January 2018 (UTC) 3210:02:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC) 3190:02:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC) 928:Knowledge:Devil's dictionary 739:However, if adding comments 7: 4170:19:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC) 4133:15:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC) 3850:performed the action" etc. 3393:, it would be discussed at 3158:11:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC) 3140:00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC) 3122:22:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC) 3041:00:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC) 2800:16:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC) 2772:15:50, 2 January 2018 (UTC) 2712:15:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC) 2651:Per all the other nos. — 1836:Don Quixote de la Supresión 906:15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC) 887:15:51, 2 January 2018 (UTC) 10: 4956: 4844:18:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4827:18:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4813:18:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4796:17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4774:17:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4745:17:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4651:18:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC) 4362:Knowledge:Deletion process 4265:has since been removed. -- 4263:Knowledge:Deletion process 4237:Knowledge:Deletion process 4147:Knowledge:Deletion process 3748:00:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 3720:15:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 3700:13:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 3686:10:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 3661:09:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 3071:(including WikiProjects), 2831:(including WikiProjects), 1984: 1757:. It bears two templates: 1628:I would particularly like 860:01:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 768:19:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC) 733:19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC) 714:19:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC) 694:18:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC) 542: 483:My reading: "Closures may 4592:didn't get a response to 4370:), it should be there. -- 4261:that once existed within 4074:13:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 4034:12:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 4005:05:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 3995:page. What do you think? 3979:02:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 3962:07:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 3944:07:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 3906:19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 3894:17:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 3871:17:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 3860:17:19, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 3844:16:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 3565:https://imgur.com/a/uj0vN 3370: 2682:20:21, 19 June 2017 (UTC) 2486:, in which you linked to 2105:, per consensus above. -- 2018:deletion/merge discussion 2007:18:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 1327:|s&a-work-group=yes}} 1315:the Article Alerts system 802:20:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC) 4941:10:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC) 4903:02:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC) 4868:Redirects for discussion 4859:Please do not modify it. 4660:Please do not modify it. 3823:18:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 3647:. I have also added the 2665:02:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC) 2644:10:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC) 2627:22:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2604:02:42, 31 May 2017 (UTC) 2585:11:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2571:07:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2551:07:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2523:12:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC) 2509:10:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2476:05:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2451:02:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2429:01:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2412:00:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2381:00:03, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2355:06:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2337:01:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2322:01:37, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2312:That's what DRV is for. 2308:23:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2294:23:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2269:23:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2254:23:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2213:01:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 2198:23:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2167:23:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2150:23:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2132:22:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2115:19:42, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2098:19:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2080:19:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2063:19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 2041:, because as I noted at 2033:19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1967:10:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 1934:19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1920:17:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1885:19:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1866:19:08, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1849:16:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1822:13:44, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1796:11:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1711:06:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1696:03:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1682:03:09, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1668:03:02, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1646:02:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1624:02:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1610:02:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1596:02:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1574:02:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1560:02:19, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1541:02:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1506:02:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1488:02:07, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1474:01:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1448:00:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1434:00:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1415:00:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 1401:23:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC) 1384:21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC) 1362:11:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC) 1301:22:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1276:22:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1258:22:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1238:22:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1219:21:44, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1202:21:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1169:21:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1145:21:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1123:21:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1107:20:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1093:20:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1064:20:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1050:19:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC) 1029:23:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC) 1015:22:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC) 976:23:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC) 962:12:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC) 944:11:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC) 841:07:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC) 380:can offer some insight. 4506:Miscellany for Deletion 3792:12:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC) 3777:08:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC) 3391:go to AFD a second time 3106:, excluding redirects; 2866:, excluding redirects; 2786:Miscellany for deletion 1367:to add them, who knows. 4877: 3983:Sorry to confuse you, 3010:, ... and the various 1907:, since it's Latin. -- 821:WT:FFD#Relisting FFD's 809:WT:FFD#Relisting FFD's 4876: 4510:Articles for Deletion 4387:I can't find it. But 4352:Knowledge:Twinkle/doc 4047:Template:Rfd relisted 3924:Template:Cfd relisted 2989:Excludes: redirects; 2804:This is what it was: 2441:a policy talk page. 1325:WikiProject Biography 539:===Through editing=== 42:of past discussions. 4350:OK, it was added to 4309:first added “venue” 4253:This sounds as if a 1548:Why not RFC on XFDs? 1156:Interlocutory appeal 920:request for comments 914:Why not RFC on XFDs? 778:Listing of past AfDs 4088:List of old relists 3993:WP:Deletion process 3951:WP:Deletion process 3875:Well, the sentence 3706:the other talk page 2014:request for comment 1333:WikiProject Lebanon 653:Redirect or delete? 4878: 4661: 4585:Help Desk question 4022:subst:cfd relisted 3930:subst:Cfd relisted 3899:for other input.-- 3832:Talking about the 3811:WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE 3800:WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE 3798:Case missing from 3672:WP:Deletion policy 3379:|page=BitConnect}} 3099:, and the various 3097:Gadget definition: 3081:Education Program: 2974:, and the various 2965:Gadget definition: 2859:, and the various 2857:Gadget definition: 2841:Education Program: 2483:this post of yours 2016:within an ongoing 1755:Talk:Mireille Issa 1339:Talk:Mireille Issa 4939: 4891: 4772: 4659: 4533:create-protection 4487: 4464: 4307:User:Black Falcon 4053:or changing into 3692:Prince of Thieves 3653:Prince of Thieves 3554: 3369:has the template 3208: 2945:Education Program 2734:but occasionally 2660: 2568: 2548: 2465: 2172:Yes (permissible) 1899: 1771:|importance=low}} 959: 760:Shawn in Montreal 725:Shawn in Montreal 706:Shawn in Montreal 686:Shawn in Montreal 570: 569: 464: 432: 396: 365: 287: 168: 131: 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4947: 4935: 4929: 4922: 4899: 4896: 4889: 4866:"XfD" listed at 4766: 4756: 4731: 4715: 4625: 4612: 4606: 4600: 4481: 4476: 4458: 4395: 4374: 4369: 4359: 4289: 4269: 4260: 4161: 4144: 4109: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4044: 3933: 3904: 3869: 3842: 3717: 3683: 3620: 3551: 3546: 3509: 3458: 3439: 3423: 3404: 3380: 3378: 3374: 3365: 3224: 3219: 3205: 3200: 3186: 3181: 3155: 3131: 3032: 3021: 2999: 2983: 2973: 2966: 2962: 2955: 2948: 2941: 2934: 2923: 2916: 2909: 2902: 2895: 2888: 2770: 2749: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2710: 2662: 2658: 2564: 2544: 2500: 2491: 2485: 2463: 2407: 2399: 2393: 2154:There should be 2147: 2112: 2054: 2024: 2009: 2004: 1990: 1989: 1958: 1949: 1943: 1911: 1893: 1833: 1787: 1778: 1772: 1764: 1740: 1693: 1665: 1621: 1593: 1584:deletion sorting 1557: 1392: 1353: 1349:respectively. -- 1336: 1328: 1228:considerations? 1135:considerations. 1041: 1006: 955: 885: 818: 817: 800: 751: 745: 674: 666: 555: 553:WP:EDITCONSENSUS 534: 533: 524: 494: 482: 460: 454: 449: 439: 426: 414: 411: 392: 386: 381: 372: 359: 325: 318: 283: 266: 237: 234: 216: 180: 164: 158: 153: 144: 127: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4955: 4954: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4946: 4945: 4944: 4938: 4933: 4925: 4910: 4897: 4894: 4871: 4863: 4862: 4750: 4725: 4709: 4701:deletion review 4683:deletion review 4669:this discussion 4664: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4633: 4623: 4610: 4604: 4598: 4587: 4572:Robert McClenon 4546:Robert McClenon 4497: 4470: 4430: 4393: 4372: 4365: 4355: 4283: 4267: 4254: 4178: 4159: 4138: 4120: 4111: 4107: 4090: 4060: 4038: 3927: 3920: 3900: 3865: 3838: 3830: 3804: 3758: 3715: 3681: 3641: 3618: 3549: 3543:1200 page views 3507: 3452: 3437: 3431:), contrary to 3429:Talk:BitConnect 3417: 3398: 3387:deletion review 3376: 3372: 3367:Talk:BitConnect 3359: 3347:Graeme Bartlett 3324:Graeme Bartlett 3295:Graeme Bartlett 3253: 3222: 3217: 3203: 3184: 3179: 3174: 3153: 3129: 3030: 3019: 2994: 2979: 2975: 2968: 2964: 2957: 2950: 2943: 2936: 2929: 2918: 2911: 2904: 2897: 2890: 2883: 2768: 2751: 2747: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2720: 2708: 2691: 2653: 2632:Not a good idea 2567: 2547: 2498: 2487: 2481: 2405: 2397: 2391: 2156:no formal rules 2145: 2107: 2052: 2022: 2010: 2000: 1994: 1992: 1987: 1983: 1956: 1945: 1939: 1909: 1827: 1785: 1776:has been listed 1774: 1766: 1758: 1734: 1688: 1660: 1616: 1588: 1552: 1390: 1351: 1330: 1322: 1245:WP:DROPTHESTICK 1151:Deletion Review 1039: 1004: 958: 916: 883: 866: 852:Unscintillating 848: 815: 812: 792: 780: 749: 743: 668: 660: 649: 617:Unscintillating 581:Unscintillating 559: 558: 551: 547: 522:oldid=767216503 520: 492: 476: 463: 458: 452: 442:deletion review 433: 412: 409: 395: 390: 384: 378:Unscintillating 366: 323: 312: 286: 264: 235: 232: 214: 196: 178: 167: 162: 156: 142: 130: 106:Unscintillating 100: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4953: 4931: 4909: 4906: 4870: 4864: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4706: 4705: 4688: 4687: 4665: 4656: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4632: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4586: 4583: 4537: 4536: 4526: 4520: 4496: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4468: 4429: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4212: 4211: 4177: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4119: 4116: 4101: 4089: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 3919: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3829: 3826: 3803: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3757: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3729: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3704:Cross-post to 3640: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3595: 3580: 3568: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3476: 3461: 3425: 3406: 3305: 3252: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3173: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3043: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2977: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2766: 2725: 2719: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2706: 2684: 2667: 2646: 2629: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2565: 2545: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2453: 2431: 2414: 2383: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2236: 2235: 2226: 2225: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2185: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2169: 2164:Uanfala (talk) 2152: 2134: 2117: 2100: 2082: 2065: 1985: 1982: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1753:been added to 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1580:article alerts 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1457:would be proud 1368: 1311: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 978: 956: 915: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 881: 847: 844: 811: 807:Discussion at 805: 779: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 648: 645: 644: 643: 642: 641: 605: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 574: 573: 572: 571: 568: 567: 557: 556: 548: 543: 541: 540: 528: 527: 526: 525: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 456: 424: 423: 422: 421: 420: 388: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 349: 292: 284: 208: 207: 204: 195: 192: 191: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 160: 150: 136: 128: 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4952: 4943: 4942: 4936: 4930: 4928: 4919: 4915: 4905: 4904: 4901: 4900: 4887: 4883: 4875: 4869: 4860: 4845: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4810: 4806: 4802: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4794: 4790: 4786: 4781: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4770: 4765: 4760: 4754: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4729: 4723: 4719: 4713: 4704: 4702: 4698: 4695:Closures may 4693: 4692: 4691: 4686: 4684: 4680: 4677:Closures may 4675: 4674: 4673: 4670: 4663: 4652: 4649: 4645: 4641: 4626: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4613: 4611:contributions 4607: 4601: 4595: 4594:this question 4591: 4582: 4581: 4577: 4573: 4569: 4565: 4561: 4556: 4555: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4534: 4530: 4527: 4524: 4521: 4518: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4511: 4507: 4503: 4490: 4485: 4480: 4474: 4469: 4467: 4462: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4433: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4401: 4397: 4390: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4368: 4363: 4358: 4353: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4342: 4338: 4324: 4320: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4305: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4287: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4264: 4258: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4142: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4115: 4114: 4110: 4104: 4099: 4095: 4075: 4071: 4067: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4042: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4019: 4017: 4011: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3981: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3952: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3931: 3925: 3907: 3903: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3868: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3841: 3835: 3825: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3801: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3774: 3770: 3767: 3763: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3740: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3721: 3718: 3713: 3712: 3707: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3684: 3679: 3678: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3664: 3663: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3646: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3596: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3581: 3578: 3574: 3569: 3566: 3562: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3553: 3552: 3544: 3540: 3539: 3534: 3531: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3481: 3477: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3462: 3456: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3445: 3441: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3421: 3420:old AfD multi 3415: 3411: 3407: 3402: 3401:old AfD multi 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3368: 3363: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3334: 3330: 3325: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3306: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3287:User:Fuzheado 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3268: 3266: 3262: 3257: 3242: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3226: 3225: 3220: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3198: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3188: 3187: 3182: 3172: 3159: 3156: 3151: 3150: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3109: 3105: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3047:Pages in the 3044: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3027: 3023: 3016: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2992: 2986: 2981: 2971: 2960: 2953: 2946: 2939: 2932: 2927: 2921: 2914: 2907: 2900: 2893: 2886: 2882:Pages in the 2881: 2880: 2878: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2807:Pages in the 2806: 2805: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2763: 2760: 2757: 2756: 2745: 2741: 2723: 2713: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2696: 2688: 2685: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2668: 2666: 2663: 2661: 2656: 2650: 2647: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2630: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2613: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2569: 2563: 2558: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2549: 2543: 2537: 2533: 2530: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2495: 2490: 2484: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2461: 2457: 2454: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2439: 2435: 2432: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2401: 2400: 2394: 2387: 2384: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2369: 2366: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2343:WP:DRVPURPOSE 2340: 2339: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2276: 2275: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2238: 2237: 2232: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2179: 2176: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2168: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2151: 2148: 2142: 2138: 2135: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2118: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2104: 2101: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2085:Of course not 2083: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2069: 2066: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2019: 2015: 2008: 2005: 2003: 2002:Winged Blades 1997: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1953: 1948: 1944:, the AfD is 1942: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1906: 1905: 1897: 1896:edit conflict 1892: 1886: 1883: 1880: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1837: 1831: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1789: 1782: 1777: 1770: 1762: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1738: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1694: 1691: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1666: 1663: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1619: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1594: 1591: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1558: 1555: 1549: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1529:Mireille Issa 1507: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1472: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1455: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1334: 1326: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1289:Mireille Issa 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1199: 1195: 1170: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1152: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1121: 1118: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1091: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1001: 997: 993: 990: 987: 983: 979: 977: 973: 969: 965: 964: 963: 960: 954: 948: 947: 946: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 907: 903: 899: 894: 890: 889: 888: 878: 875: 872: 871: 864: 863: 862: 861: 857: 853: 843: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 810: 804: 803: 799: 798: 797: 789: 785: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 748: 742: 736: 735: 734: 730: 726: 722: 717: 716: 715: 711: 707: 703: 698: 697: 696: 695: 691: 687: 682: 678: 672: 664: 658: 654: 640: 637: 632: 628: 627: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 607: 606: 599: 596: 592: 591: 590: 586: 582: 578: 577: 576: 575: 566: 564: 554: 550: 549: 546: 538: 537: 536: 535: 532: 531: 530: 529: 523: 518: 517: 516: 513: 509: 499: 496: 495: 486: 480: 475: 474: 473: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 467: 461: 455: 447: 443: 437: 430: 429:edit conflict 425: 419: 416: 415: 405: 401: 400: 399: 393: 387: 379: 375: 370: 363: 362:edit conflict 358: 348: 344: 340: 336: 332: 331: 330: 327: 326: 316: 311: 310: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 291: 288: 282: 277: 273: 272: 271: 268: 267: 259: 258: 257: 253: 249: 244: 243: 242: 239: 238: 228: 224: 223: 222: 221: 218: 217: 205: 202: 199:Closures may 198: 197: 185: 182: 181: 173: 172: 171: 165: 159: 151: 149: 146: 145: 137: 135: 132: 126: 121: 117: 116: 115: 111: 107: 102: 101: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4926: 4911: 4892: 4879: 4858: 4805:TonyBallioni 4779: 4758: 4717: 4707: 4696: 4694: 4689: 4678: 4676: 4666: 4657: 4588: 4557: 4538: 4528: 4522: 4516: 4498: 4434: 4431: 4367:this version 4333: 4182:WP:XFD#VENUE 4179: 4176:WP:XFD#VENUE 4141:Harlywise123 4125:Harlywise123 4121: 4118:Page removal 4091: 4054: 4050: 4015: 4013: 3988: 3921: 3902:SkyGazer 512 3881: 3876: 3867:SkyGazer 512 3840:SkyGazer 512 3831: 3807:WP:NOTBADNAC 3805: 3765: 3761: 3759: 3737: 3728: 3710: 3676: 3648: 3642: 3547: 3537: 3536: 3535:, you wrote 3310:TonyBallioni 3269: 3258: 3254: 3215: 3201: 3177: 3175: 3148: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3046: 3011: 3007: 2988: 2926:WikiProjects 2871: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2781: 2780: 2754: 2740:Template:Tfd 2721: 2694: 2686: 2652: 2648: 2631: 2614: 2561: 2541: 2535: 2531: 2459: 2455: 2433: 2416: 2404: 2396: 2390: 2385: 2367: 2277: 2241: 2230: 2221: 2171: 2160:common sense 2155: 2136: 2119: 2108: 2102: 2084: 2067: 2038: 2011: 2001: 1903: 1871: 1853: 1835: 1809: 1750: 1742: 1733: 1689: 1661: 1629: 1617: 1589: 1553: 1547: 1526: 1460: 1454:Davish Krail 1420: 1318: 1307: 1286: 1263: 1225: 1191: 1132: 1128: 1076: 1034: 1000:WP:FORUMSHOP 988: 952: 917: 898:TonyBallioni 892: 869: 849: 813: 794: 793: 787: 781: 756:WP:AFDFORMAT 740: 738: 652: 650: 560: 490: 484: 408: 321: 280: 262: 231: 212: 209: 200: 176: 140: 124: 120:WP:ADMINACCT 78: 43: 37: 4599:Vchimpanzee 4590:Smartyllama 3815:Count Count 3666:Please see 3600:Cheesy poof 3585:Cheesy poof 3573:Cheesy poof 3533:Cheesy poof 3485:Cheesy poof 3466:Cheesy poof 3362:Cheesy poof 3329:Cheesy poof 3272:Cheesy poof 2924:(including 2755:SMcCandlish 2695:SMcCandlish 2596:Enterprisey 2557:Enterprisey 2460:from within 2347:Enterprisey 2314:Enterprisey 2286:Enterprisey 2261:Enterprisey 2246:Herostratus 1941:these edits 1337:present on 870:SMcCandlish 36:This is an 4833:Locke Cole 4831:🙏🏻🙏🏻 — 4801:Locke Cole 4785:Locke Cole 4753:Locke Cole 4734:Locke Cole 4640:Locke Cole 4108:reply here 3918:Cfd relist 3410:undeletion 3265:BitConnect 3104:namespaces 3077:TimedText: 3069:Knowledge: 3065:MediaWiki: 3015:namespaces 2985:namespaces 2864:namespaces 2837:TimedText: 2829:Knowledge: 2825:MediaWiki: 2736:Knowledge: 2619:Beeblebrox 1947:now listed 1938:Following 1872:ad hominem 1854:Ad hominem 1421:ad hominem 1287:Let's try 1264:ad hominem 1226:ad hominem 1133:ad hominem 579:Posted by 296:User:NeilN 90:Archive 14 85:Archive 13 79:Archive 12 73:Archive 11 68:Archive 10 4708:However, 4690:To this: 4357:this edit 4315:SmokeyJoe 4292:SmokeyJoe 4241:SmokeyJoe 4219:WP:TW/DOC 4201:SmokeyJoe 4094:WP:RELIST 4010:WP:RELIST 3882:shouldn't 3649:Transwiki 3614:Help:Link 3455:Redrose64 3405:template. 3108:userboxes 2991:userboxes 2938:TimedText 2920:Knowledge 2913:MediaWiki 2868:userboxes 2782:Userboxes 2728:Template: 2674:George Ho 2670:Redrose64 2655:Jeff G. ツ 2489:this edit 2421:Guy Macon 2329:SmokeyJoe 2282:WP:NORUSH 2205:SmokeyJoe 2190:SmokeyJoe 2124:Legacypac 2095:(contrib) 2089:Eggishorn 1882:(contrib) 1876:Eggishorn 1846:(contrib) 1840:Eggishorn 1745:linked - 1503:(contrib) 1497:Eggishorn 1471:(contrib) 1465:Eggishorn 1431:(contrib) 1425:Eggishorn 1308:certainly 1255:(contrib) 1249:Eggishorn 1216:(contrib) 1210:Eggishorn 1166:(contrib) 1160:Eggishorn 1120:(contrib) 1114:Eggishorn 1090:(contrib) 1084:Eggishorn 1070:Redrose64 833:Marchjuly 825:Marchjuly 702:WP:RELIST 681:WP:RELIST 374:This edit 339:SmokeyJoe 315:SmokeyJoe 300:SmokeyJoe 248:SmokeyJoe 227:this edit 60:Archive 5 4819:Primefac 4728:Primefac 4523:Incubate 4410:CapnZapp 4337:CapnZapp 4288:|VENUE}} 4259:|VENUE}} 4223:CapnZapp 4186:CapnZapp 4041:Primefac 4026:Primefac 3985:Primefac 3971:Primefac 3886:Primefac 3852:Primefac 3645:WP:NPASR 3480:WP:MULTI 3433:WP:MULTI 3414:this one 3195:I think 2555:Pinging 2373:Johnuniq 2146:xaosflux 1998:opposed. 1991:Resolved 1904:a priori 1810:a priory 1080:contribs 992:contribs 932:po-faced 545:Shortcut 479:BU Rob13 369:Onel5969 4712:Joe Roe 4282:Adding 3802:section 3784:Bagumba 3716:(talk), 3711:Noyster 3682:(talk), 3677:Noyster 3639:Changes 3561:Lourdes 3550:Lourdes 3204:Lourdes 3154:(talk), 3149:Noyster 3145:attempt 3093:Gadget: 3085:Module: 3061:Portal: 2853:Gadget: 2845:Module: 2821:Portal: 2748:Module: 2687:No, but 2577:Siuenti 2515:Siuenti 2468:Siuenti 2456:Comment 2438:Siuenti 2398:Gestrid 2300:Siuenti 2231:outside 2072:Siuenti 1926:Siuenti 1858:Siuenti 1830:Siuenti 1814:Siuenti 1737:Siuenti 1703:Siuenti 1674:Siuenti 1638:Siuenti 1602:Siuenti 1566:Siuenti 1533:Siuenti 1480:Siuenti 1440:Siuenti 1407:Siuenti 1376:Siuenti 1317:. This 1293:Siuenti 1268:Siuenti 1230:Siuenti 1194:Siuenti 1137:Siuenti 1099:Siuenti 1056:Siuenti 1021:Siuenti 982:Siuenti 968:Siuenti 936:Siuenti 796:Velella 636:Spartaz 631:Spartaz 595:Spartaz 512:Spartaz 402:Thanks 39:archive 4722:WP:DRV 4566:, and 4529:Delete 4473:Sm8900 4452:WP:DRV 4437:Sm8900 4396:rose64 4375:rose64 4286:anchor 4270:rose64 4257:anchor 4184:. Thx 4162:rose64 4066:Hhkohh 4012:says " 3997:Hhkohh 3967:Hhkohh 3954:Hhkohh 3936:Hhkohh 3922:I see 3621:rose64 3510:rose64 3440:rose64 3383:WP:AFD 3375:delete 3291:WP:DRV 3238:(talk) 3218:Whispe 3180:Whispe 3132:rose64 3089:Topic: 3053:Draft: 3033:rose64 3022:rose64 2959:Gadget 2906:Portal 2849:Topic: 2813:Draft: 2778:WP:TFD 2769:ⱷ< 2709:ⱷ< 2659:(talk) 2501:rose64 2458:maybe 2092:(talk) 2055:rose64 2047:WP:XFD 2025:rose64 1959:rose64 1912:rose64 1879:(talk) 1843:(talk) 1788:rose64 1656:WT:PNT 1652:WP:PNT 1634:WP:PNT 1500:(talk) 1468:(talk) 1461:highly 1428:(talk) 1393:rose64 1354:rose64 1252:(talk) 1213:(talk) 1163:(talk) 1129:during 1117:(talk) 1087:(talk) 1042:rose64 1007:rose64 998:. See 893:do not 884:ⱷ< 747:relist 741:within 671:Kurykh 335:WP:NAC 4927:Godsy 4568:WP:AN 4502:gamed 3769:Pldx1 3744:talk 3101:Talk: 3073:User: 3057:Help: 3049:Book: 3012:Talk: 3008:Book: 2952:Topic 2892:Draft 2872:File: 2861:Talk: 2833:User: 2817:Help: 2809:Book: 2764:: --> 2732:User: 2704:: --> 2636:Nabla 2600:talk! 2351:talk! 2318:talk! 2290:talk! 2265:talk! 2045:, an 1531:now. 1452:Wow. 980:What 879:: --> 788:after 659:, by 453:Godsy 446:WP:AN 436:NeilN 404:Godsy 385:Godsy 276:NeilN 157:Godsy 16:< 4934:CONT 4916:and 4823:talk 4809:talk 4780:that 4769:talk 4759:that 4697:only 4679:only 4667:Per 4605:talk 4576:talk 4550:talk 4542:salt 4517:Keep 4484:talk 4461:talk 4454:. – 4441:talk 4414:talk 4400:talk 4398:🌹 ( 4379:talk 4377:🌹 ( 4341:talk 4319:talk 4311:here 4296:talk 4274:talk 4272:🌹 ( 4245:talk 4227:talk 4205:talk 4190:talk 4166:talk 4164:🌹 ( 4157:. -- 4129:talk 4070:talk 4030:talk 4024:}}. 4001:talk 3975:talk 3958:talk 3940:talk 3890:talk 3856:talk 3819:talk 3788:talk 3773:talk 3696:talk 3657:talk 3625:talk 3623:🌹 ( 3616:. -- 3604:talk 3589:talk 3577:talk 3514:talk 3512:🌹 ( 3489:talk 3470:talk 3444:talk 3442:🌹 ( 3435:? -- 3351:talk 3333:talk 3314:talk 3299:talk 3276:talk 3223:ring 3185:ring 3136:talk 3134:🌹 ( 3118:talk 3114:Izno 3037:talk 3035:🌹 ( 3026:talk 3024:🌹 ( 2996:File 2980:talk 2970:Talk 2931:User 2899:Help 2885:Book 2796:talk 2792:Izno 2678:talk 2640:talk 2623:talk 2592:VPPR 2581:씨유엔티 2519:씨유엔티 2505:talk 2503:🌹 ( 2472:씨유엔티 2447:talk 2425:talk 2406:talk 2377:talk 2333:talk 2304:씨유엔티 2250:talk 2209:talk 2194:talk 2128:talk 2111:avix 2076:씨유엔티 2059:talk 2057:🌹 ( 2029:talk 2027:🌹 ( 2020:? -- 1996:Snow 1963:talk 1961:🌹 ( 1954:. -- 1930:씨유엔티 1916:talk 1914:🌹 ( 1862:씨유엔티 1818:씨유엔티 1792:talk 1790:🌹 ( 1769:WPWW 1707:씨유엔티 1692:avix 1678:씨유엔티 1664:avix 1658:. -- 1642:씨유엔티 1630:this 1620:avix 1606:씨유엔티 1592:avix 1570:씨유엔티 1556:avix 1537:씨유엔티 1484:씨유엔티 1444:씨유엔티 1411:씨유엔티 1397:talk 1395:🌹 ( 1380:씨유엔티 1358:talk 1356:🌹 ( 1345:and 1297:씨유엔티 1272:씨유엔티 1234:씨유엔티 1198:씨유엔티 1141:씨유엔티 1103:씨유엔티 1074:talk 1060:씨유엔티 1046:talk 1044:🌹 ( 1025:씨유엔티 1011:talk 1009:🌹 ( 1002:. -- 986:talk 972:씨유엔티 940:씨유엔티 934::( 902:talk 856:talk 837:talk 829:talk 784:here 764:talk 729:talk 710:talk 690:talk 663:J947 621:talk 613:diff 609:Here 585:talk 491:Neil 485:only 459:CONT 413:5969 410:Onel 391:CONT 343:talk 322:Neil 304:talk 294:No, 263:Neil 252:talk 236:5969 233:Onel 213:Neil 201:only 177:Neil 163:CONT 141:Neil 110:talk 4898:947 4882:XfD 4764:Joe 4614:• 4564:MFD 4560:AFD 4479:Joe 4456:Joe 4394:Red 4373:Red 4354:in 4313:. — 4268:Red 4239:. — 4160:Red 3991:in 3739:DGG 3619:Red 3508:Red 3497:At 3438:Red 3377:''' 3373:''' 3234:PMC 3197:PMC 3130:Red 3031:Red 3020:Red 2928:), 2562:Rob 2542:Rob 2499:Red 2417:No. 2242:lot 2068:Yes 2053:Red 2023:Red 1957:Red 1950:at 1910:Red 1803:So 1786:Red 1779:at 1761:blp 1751:not 1743:you 1582:or 1391:Red 1352:Red 1329:or 1319:can 1040:Red 1035:are 1005:Red 953:Rob 823:. 565:. 444:or 281:Rob 125:Rob 4923:— 4839:• 4835:• 4825:) 4811:) 4791:• 4787:• 4762:– 4740:• 4736:• 4724:. 4646:• 4642:• 4608:• 4602:• 4578:) 4562:, 4552:) 4477:– 4443:) 4416:) 4402:) 4381:) 4343:) 4321:) 4298:) 4284:{{ 4276:) 4255:{{ 4247:) 4229:) 4207:) 4192:) 4168:) 4131:) 4072:) 4032:) 4003:) 3977:) 3960:) 3942:) 3932:}} 3928:{{ 3892:) 3858:) 3821:) 3790:) 3775:) 3746:) 3709:: 3698:) 3675:: 3659:) 3627:) 3606:) 3591:) 3516:) 3491:) 3472:) 3446:) 3422:}} 3418:{{ 3403:}} 3399:{{ 3353:) 3335:) 3316:) 3301:) 3278:) 3236:♠ 3147:: 3138:) 3127:-- 3120:) 3095:, 3091:, 3087:, 3083:, 3079:, 3075:, 3067:, 3063:, 3059:, 3055:, 3051:, 3039:) 2967:, 2963:, 2956:, 2949:, 2942:, 2935:, 2917:, 2910:, 2903:, 2896:, 2889:, 2855:, 2851:, 2847:, 2843:, 2839:, 2835:, 2827:, 2823:, 2819:, 2815:, 2811:, 2798:) 2765:ⱷ҅ 2752:— 2724:ex 2705:ⱷ҅ 2692:— 2680:) 2649:No 2642:) 2625:) 2615:No 2602:) 2583:) 2566:13 2546:13 2532:No 2521:) 2507:) 2474:) 2449:) 2434:No 2427:) 2410:) 2386:No 2379:) 2368:No 2353:) 2335:) 2327:-- 2320:) 2306:) 2292:) 2284:. 2278:No 2267:) 2252:) 2222:No 2211:) 2196:) 2188:-- 2137:No 2130:) 2120:No 2103:No 2078:) 2061:) 2050:-- 2039:No 2031:) 1993:– 1965:) 1932:) 1918:) 1864:) 1820:) 1794:) 1767:{{ 1763:}} 1759:{{ 1709:) 1680:) 1644:) 1608:) 1572:) 1550:-- 1539:) 1486:) 1446:) 1413:) 1399:) 1382:) 1360:) 1335:}} 1331:{{ 1323:{{ 1299:) 1274:) 1236:) 1200:) 1143:) 1105:) 1062:) 1048:) 1027:) 1013:) 974:) 957:13 942:) 904:) 880:ⱷ҅ 867:— 858:) 839:) 766:) 750:}} 744:{{ 731:) 723:. 712:) 692:) 623:) 587:) 450:— 382:— 345:) 306:) 285:13 254:) 229:. 154:— 129:13 112:) 64:← 4937:) 4895:J 4890:— 4841:c 4837:t 4821:( 4807:( 4793:c 4789:t 4771:) 4767:( 4755:: 4751:@ 4742:c 4738:t 4732:— 4730:: 4726:@ 4714:: 4710:@ 4648:c 4644:t 4574:( 4548:( 4535:. 4486:) 4482:( 4475:: 4471:@ 4463:) 4459:( 4439:( 4412:( 4339:( 4317:( 4294:( 4243:( 4225:( 4203:( 4188:( 4143:: 4139:@ 4127:( 4105:| 4068:( 4043:: 4039:@ 4028:( 3999:( 3973:( 3956:( 3938:( 3888:( 3854:( 3817:( 3786:( 3771:( 3742:( 3694:( 3655:( 3602:( 3587:( 3579:) 3575:( 3487:( 3468:( 3457:: 3453:@ 3364:: 3360:@ 3349:( 3331:( 3312:( 3297:( 3274:( 3116:( 2998:: 2987:. 2982:: 2978:X 2972:: 2961:: 2954:: 2947:: 2940:: 2933:: 2922:: 2915:: 2908:: 2901:: 2894:: 2887:: 2794:( 2767:ᴥ 2762:¢ 2759:☏ 2707:ᴥ 2702:¢ 2699:☏ 2676:( 2638:( 2621:( 2598:( 2579:( 2517:( 2470:( 2445:( 2423:( 2402:( 2392:— 2375:( 2349:( 2331:( 2316:( 2302:( 2288:( 2263:( 2248:( 2207:( 2192:( 2126:( 2109:T 2074:( 1928:( 1898:) 1894:( 1860:( 1832:: 1828:@ 1816:( 1739:: 1735:@ 1705:( 1690:T 1676:( 1662:T 1640:( 1618:T 1604:( 1590:T 1568:( 1554:T 1535:( 1482:( 1442:( 1409:( 1378:( 1295:( 1270:( 1232:( 1196:( 1139:( 1101:( 1077:· 1072:( 1058:( 1023:( 989:· 984:( 970:( 938:( 900:( 882:ᴥ 877:¢ 874:☏ 854:( 835:( 827:( 762:( 727:( 708:( 688:( 673:: 669:@ 665:: 661:@ 619:( 583:( 493:N 481:: 477:@ 462:) 438:: 434:@ 431:) 427:( 394:) 371:: 367:@ 364:) 360:( 341:( 324:N 317:: 313:@ 302:( 265:N 250:( 215:N 179:N 166:) 143:N 108:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Deletion process/Archive 12 - Knowledge

Index