559:. If that sounds weird, consider that we're already doing exactly that, just minus the "topical" part: what constitutes reliable for GNG purposes is narrower than that required for in-article sourcing, in that "multiple" and "in-depth" are added. So, it's not much of a stretch to add another layer; e.g. for academics, in-depth coverage need not be required, but frequent citation would be. For entertainment "figures", entertainment press would be unreliable
422:(formerly GNG, general notability guideline) now (multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources) and that it consists of objective not subjective criteria. It has finally become clear to everyone that topical notability guidelines cannot trump the GNC and WP:N. That said, I think that the general understanding level of the average Wikipedian of policies, guidelines, essays and their interaction has actually gone
538:
some ways is worse – it is not better sourced, but it has more trivia. And this is one of the borderline cases. Innumerable articles on actors, bands/musicians, pornstars, writers, local politicians, executives, models, sportspeople, etc., etc., are flooding
Knowledge (XXG) (along with non-bios on not-really-notable songs, albums, films, companies, etc.). It's a maintenance and quality-control nightmare.
335:, a nasty loophole!) and the larger collection of such guidelines and would-be guidelines that WP:DEL does not mention at all, are almost uniformly both largely exclusionary ("delete-me" guides) and highly subjectively prescriptive as to details, regardless of the PNC. Thus, the topical notability guidelines (many of which greatly predate WP:N) are mostly in
274:" statements in disguise, and yet others demand actions that defy piles of precedent, such as deleting school articles instead of merging them with school district ones. AfD chatter could probably be greatly reduced by use of standardized "broken argument" tags in lieu of re-re-re-explaining the same issues time and again in long-winded "
31:
67:
1104:
494:– it's rightly pointed out there that "this fails " is trumped any time the GNG is actually satisfied by the article, while an interpretation that something that clearly fails GNG but somehow passes an SNG is frequently rejected. The purpose of SNGs was to outline what is and is not, within that topic,
225:) of the articles successfully AfD'd probably did need to be either removed or improved drastically (and I nominate articles for deletion myself, and have lost an article to that process, without putting up a fight about it since the article did in fact have a lot of problems). But it ought to be for
524:
On the other hand, WP is just damned well drowning in bios of pseudo-celebrities. Virtually anyone who's ever appeared in more than one episode of any TV show or had a single in the pop or R&B charts can have an article here. We have thousands upon thousands of junk stubs that are never going to
110:
views don't make much sense to me. I can't even guess how many times I've see some person or place or thing or concept mentioned in an article, wanted to know more on that topic, and found that not only was there no wikilink on the term, there wasn't any article to point one at, and then later found
310:
on
Knowledge (XXG). Grossly insufficient input like that is evidenciary simply of the fact that the article either has no active editors or that they are on wikibreak or something. This doesn't even start to get into a broader issue, that of deleting articles that should instead be fixed (e.g., by
1507:
587:
on
Knowledge (XXG)'s part. In determining notability, it's entirely permissible, because that's an internal matter. We do exactly the same kind of permissible OR when we assess publisher and author reputability and thus source reliability, to begin with. Another example is how we decide article
537:
has some movie and TV credits in minor roles, and has been interviewed and had some fluff articles written about her in celeb and entertainment rags. Oh, and she did some charity work. I sent this to AfD, and it was kept as "no consensus". Years later, the page has not improved noticeably and in
185:
abuse. Notably (no pun intended) these improvements did not start happening until the
Disputedpolicy tag attracted notice and drew more people into the debate. Suddenly WP:N could not be be micromanaged any longer, ongoing debates could not be swept under the rug, and the document was radically
540:
Let's be very clear: landing some acting jobs in TV shows and movies doesn't make someone actually notable in an encyclopedic sense; it just makes them competent in their profession. The only difference between these people and those who are really competent bartenders and cab drivers is that
265:
reason is given. And the initial proponent of the AfD can also proactively warn against misuse of NN (or other oft-abused deletion arguments), when creating the AfD. Additional templates could also be used to gently correct other abuses; most !voters using "speedy" don't seem to know what it
574:
about notability: level of influentialness (influentiality?) of the subject. The idea that frequent citation in journals proves an academic's notability could be extended: if numerous musicians, for example, cite another as an influence/inspiration, this is evidence of notability. This is
363:, and extreme deletionist whining in contravention of WP:N should be ignored with equally extreme prejudice by AfD-closing admins. I hope that this guideline-to-be can serve as a model for what to do with the rest of the subject-specific notability criteria, when it is better-developed.
545:; most of these publishers are owned by the same companies that own the movie studios, record labels, and TV networks; those of the former that are not house organs are still totally dependent on the latter – the vast majority of their income is from entertainment advertising dollars.
607:
power struggle that isn't going well (and in that form shouldn't). If there were instead a new site-wide consensus that GNG reform is necessary as proposed here, or in some other form – there's an idea to change GNG into GVG, the general verifiability guideline, and move it into
430:, I see a lot of really inane arguments in almost every non-trivial deletion debate, mostly gross misunderstandings of what a policy or guideline really says, or what it means in interaction with another. I think this is a strong sign that we have too much "legalese" and need to
75:
This is a historical document, a diary of sorts of my views on and involvement with the evolution of the "notability" concept on
Knowledge (XXG) starting in 2006. I have edited it very little since then, other than some cleanup in late 2007. Every few years I add an update at the
1474:
131:
I had historically been very skeptical and vocally critical of "notabilty" concepts of various sorts in
Knowledge (XXG), period, because of how poorly they were constructed, especially as to their level of personal-preference interpretability. What alarmed me about the
1159:
159:
into alleged guideline status, was subject to sudden archiving of still-active discussions, was dominated by a small handful of boosters of the then-current version of the document's language, and was otherwise simply not very reflective of
Wikiculture at all.
784:
311:
the addition of another reference or two to satisfy the PNC; NPOV edits to fix a bias problem; etc.) That's a different discussion for a different time, as is the case of punitive or simply careless deletions (e.g. the sometimes premature closing of an AfD as
509:
of times, but not be covered in-depth in multiple, independent, reliable sources (GNG). The only ones who are ones who do TV shows, popularized-science books, and other things that make them "celebrities", or those who unfortunately get embroiled in a public
140:
the frequency with which NN is misunderstood and [ab]used, often without any other rationale (and fervently but incorrectly believed to be
Knowledge (XXG) Policy when it is actually just a guideline and related subject-specific guidelines), in the
1259:
909:
675:
206:. The idea veered wildly from "importance" to "fame" to "actionability" (huh?!) and various other concepts before settling down to the more objective criteria we now have (as of early 2007), namely that an article subject needs to be attestable by
1114:
123:, but AfD has basically turned into an obsessive bloodsport for many (try this: observe the 10 or so most-active AfD participants over some significant span of time, such as a week. Next check this list of editors' edit contributions.)
290:
when there is a "consensus" of only a tiny handful of editors. I see this all the time, and have successfully returned articles to AfD via the
Deletion Review process in a couple of egregious cases. Three !votes after a week that say
1329:
1284:
1369:
859:
498:. I.e., SNGs at present are a fortune-telling system that people have mistaken for a set of rules to enforce. This has proven to be pretty angsty, time-sucking, and impractical. While not actually addressing the problems.
347:, that does not have such a conflict. We'll see how that experiment goes. It relies (to the extent that it has been properly constructed so far) entirely on WP:N and long-standing policies/guidelines, and then gives some
359:; if editors of the player's article can satisfy WP:N's PNC, then the player is self-evidently notable. An almost silly example, since it is highly unlikely that any local league player could in fact satisfy the PNC, but
904:
1324:
339:
with WP:N. Wording twiddles have been made to WP:N to try to skirt this problem, but they are really simply hiding the issue rather than solving it (as of
February 9, 2007; future edits may be more productive).
1229:
470:, "general notability guideline", but essentially the same. I spoke too soon in 2012; at least two wikiproject-connected groups of editors are asserting that their subject-specific notability guideline is an
1434:
1424:
869:
719:
1522:
959:
899:
1334:
505:
It's nearly impossible to create an article here about an important and influential academic, unless by chance they're a charismatic publicity hound. A scientist may have their work cited literally
1184:
969:
774:
1264:
478:
of the kinks have been worked out of our notability system. We've come a long way from the "fame and importance" stuff of the 2000s proposals. (But ... see below.) I still think most of the
520:
the GNG. The motivation is well-meaning, but this approach is terrible and dangerous – it inspires others to try this with their pet topics, too, even when there's no similar justification.
327:
Another lingering problem is that WP:N is as much a guideline on what makes an article worth keeping as it is a deletion tool, but the subject-specific notability criteria enumerated at
989:
1164:
234:
1154:
1089:
1014:
1354:
894:
315:
immediately after it has been merge-tagged, such that the merge is thwarted, and admin begging or Deletion Review has to be invoked to get at the salvageable content. Admins:
1399:
96:
Note, 8 December 2007: My views on this topic have changed radically in the last 18 months; as a result, this version is a substantial overhaul of the early-mid 2006 original.
839:
724:
1084:
1299:
819:
1414:
1374:
1309:
599:
That's all I'll write about this for now, other than to suggest that the real future of the SNGs could be housing this kind of material, with their gist summarized at
136:("not notable") meme, aside from the fact that it did not actually represent the consensus its proponents claimed until its vast improvements in late 2006 onward, was
1344:
1049:
218:, blissfully unaware that the PNC exists at all, much less that it has replaced the old "famousness", "popularity", and "importance" kinds of notability concepts.
1429:
1269:
1214:
1099:
849:
1517:
1359:
1079:
1044:
769:
1568:
1004:
1194:
1314:
1179:
479:
1138:
1094:
809:
533:
entry has way more and better info on these people, whiile being a huge database of minor entertainers is not Knowledge (XXG)'s job. Someone like, say,
541:
there's a cult-of-personality-and-scandal marketplace surrounding people connected with the entertainment industry. The coverage they get is not really
1394:
1379:
1349:
434:
half of these documents, because they are ultimately causing more trouble than they solve and are very clearly turning Knowledge (XXG) into precisely
177:, mostly in November and December 2006, have had a marked impact on improving WP:N. The guideline (no longer disputed that I'm aware of) has come a
1364:
739:
1464:
1279:
1274:
1029:
202:
in AfD remain, largely stemming from the imprecise, subjective and radically changing nature of the "notability" concept in Knowledge (XXG) from
1444:
1289:
1064:
954:
924:
919:
1409:
1054:
979:
662:
402:. But a lot also has not changed, with an enormous number of XfD !votes being random b.s. that isn't grounded in anything. Not sure what to
286:
Invalid "me too, but I don't really understand policy at all" !votes are not the only AfD issue. A serious one is admins closing debates as
382:
are also in part basically variants of notability guidelines in certain ways, and their interplay needs to be factored in and smoothed out.
1479:
1059:
46:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Knowledge (XXG) contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
934:
929:
47:
844:
1119:
714:
513:
1454:
1248:
1169:
914:
814:
571:
203:
1339:
1294:
1109:
944:
729:
629:
452:
584:
490:; see below again). They seemed very necessary around 2010, but now just seem to cause drama, and AfD is increasingly relying on
1558:
1439:
1304:
1149:
1019:
974:
834:
758:
704:
612:) then the SNGs could repurposed for this, since dumping a bunch of reliable-sourcing definitions on a topic-by-topic basis into
214:, or PNC). Meanwhile many Wikipedians had already latched on to one or more of the older, flawed conceptions of notability, and
542:
1512:
1189:
1069:
1034:
879:
829:
1174:
1074:
1009:
884:
864:
804:
119:
on highly suspect "non-notable" grounds, often with a so-called consensus of 2–5 editors. The situation is improving
1469:
1404:
1384:
999:
994:
874:
799:
794:
789:
355:
AfD on WP:N, WP:V, etc. grounds. I.e., the fact that it says that local tournament players are not likely to be notable
253:
in AfD, to change this: Tag them with a warning that they will not be counted as anything but neutral comments (however "
1024:
709:
575:
interesting and unusual from WP's typical viewpoint, because in both kinds of cases this is a new kind of verification:
555:
One idea I've been mulling is to augment the GNG with topically specific definitions of what "reliable sourcing" means
174:
87:
1389:
1199:
964:
688:
102:
Knowledge (XXG)'s capacity to catalogue everything we collectively know is effectively unlimited, so the more extreme
604:
1419:
1204:
854:
501:
We clearly do still have at least two problems. Over the last several years, these things have become very clear:
230:
609:
1319:
1209:
939:
824:
655:
1219:
1224:
1039:
889:
271:
267:
734:
167:
1105:
User:Vanished user 909146283013/Follow the WP:EPISODE guideline and make AfD easier for articles that don't
613:
600:
589:
148:
83:
194:
However, despite December 2006 - February 2007 improvements in the guideline's wording, scope, intent and
671:
306:
51:
626:
446:
593:
390:
Reviewing this old essay in January 2010, I find that a lot has changed, especially the development of
1563:
1538:
779:
648:
596:(recognizability, naturalness, precision, etc.) is an entirely original-research, internal process.
156:
1459:
426:
across the entire system, surely as the result of so many good editors and admins leaving. Despite
303:, it would most likely already have been speedy-tagged and an admin would have already deleted it)
344:
332:
39:
366:
There are also other loose ends. For example, there is also a content guideline against use of
1475:
User:MichaelQSchmidt/The general notability guide versus subject-specific notability guidelines
603:. Maybe the "rebellion" of a couple of these pages against the GNG is presently mistargted, a
427:
391:
182:
949:
621:
441:
17:
1160:
User:ASCIIn2Bme/Verifiability and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers
491:
487:
467:
435:
431:
419:
379:
375:
367:
328:
300:
250:
152:
142:
116:
1449:
406:
about that, but at least some improvement has happened since I first wrote this in 2006.
1508:
Assume the assumption of the assumption of the assumption of the assumption of bad faith
785:
User:Aspening/Just because something is unflattering doesn't mean it should be deleted
415:
133:
1552:
699:
1260:
User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
910:
User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
249:, perhaps with some inline warning templates for use in response to malformed "NN"
173:
and my unwavering arguments with regard to its flaws and problems at that time, in
1115:
User:ViperSnake151/Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (Human Readable Version)
103:
1541:
category page has many more, listed below the subcategories section on the pages.
418:
is now a key guideline, and everyone seems to understand well what is called the
638:
02:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC); revised a little at 22:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC).
534:
530:
395:
107:
266:
actually means in the Deletion Policy context, and many also make highly PoV "
163:
Through a lot of stress and just dogged insistence, my flagging of WP:N as a
1330:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume lasting significance for instances of self-harm
270:" arguments or bald assertions of non-notability which are clearly really "
186:
overhauled very quickly. I think a major lesson can be learned from this.
1285:
User:Chrislk02/anarticleaboutaschoolthatcantfindagermanteacherisnotnotable
1370:
User:Mike Cline/Imagining a new way to look at the question of Notability
860:
User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman/Deleting redirects to facilitate searching
331:(which by their incorporation into WP:DEL actually have the force of
1325:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume lasting significance for crime articles
1230:
User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims
640:
1435:
User:Geo Swan/Evaluating notability for lesser prizes and awards
526:
1496:
1246:
1136:
870:
User:Geo Swan/opinions/editing Fahd al Jutayli while before Afd
756:
720:
User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Academic and artistic biographies
686:
644:
61:
25:
970:
User:NawlinWiki/List of things that will get speedily deleted
775:
User:AleatoryPonderings/Systemic bias in deletion discussions
960:
User:Mike Cline/The Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates
1425:
User:PorkchopGMX/Popularity doesn’t always equal notability
1335:
User:MalwareSmarts/Don't confuse non-notability with a hoax
1265:
User:Philtweir/Academic communities articles and notability
905:
User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists"
299:" for that matter (which is silly; if the AfD really was a
1185:
User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions 2013–2018 review
990:
User:Puzzledvegetable/DINC alone is not a reason to keep
351:
to editors about what sorts of articles are and are not
181:
way toward being objective, clear and far less prone to
1400:
User:Davidwr/No topic deserves to be in Knowledge (XXG)
345:
a subject-specific notability guideline, for cue sports
229:
reasons! There are some useful essays out there about
1155:
User:Alexia Death/Community Court for community issues
1090:
User:Tothwolf/rescued essays/AfD: formula for conflict
1015:
User:Robofish/Thoughts on inclusionism and deletionism
357:
cannot be used as an AfD argument in favor of deletion
1355:
User:League Octopus/Club notability tables (and test)
900:
User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists"
895:
User:Hiding/Points to note regarding deletion debates
398:), which addresses much of what I was getting at in
840:
User:Davidwr/Choosing SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD deletion
725:
User:This is Paul/Articles concerning criminal acts
343:I am personally in the process of trying to create
1300:User:Czarkoff/essays/Businesses are rarely notable
1523:Nomination of Knowledge (XXG) for speedy deletion
1375:User:Davidwr/Inherent Notability as a slang term
1310:User:ReaderofthePack/Common notability arguments
1165:User:ASCIIn2Bme/What "no consensus" really means
1345:User:Anon126/Explaining notability to newcomers
1195:User:Orlady/Getting your way at Knowledge (XXG)
1050:User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion
985:User:SMcCandlish/Notability and Deletion policy
525:improve. They're worthless dreck; the average
1430:User:RoySmith/essays/Presumption of Notability
1270:User:Robert McClenon/Acceptance of Biographies
1215:User:The Bushranger/Lob a grenade and run away
1100:User:Ultraexactzz/Time-delayed Speedy Deletion
850:User:Eire2020/WP:On the subject of deletionism
820:User:The Bushranger/Don't move articles at AfD
1360:User:ArsenalFan700/Indian Football Notability
1080:User:Tisane/Allow viewing of deleted articles
1045:User:SoWhy/Before tagging for speedy deletion
770:User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves
656:
8:
1005:User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7
516:are trying to hold it out as something that
394:(back then it was just a userspace essay by
1315:User:Lagrange613/Coverage is not notability
1180:User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal
317:Look at articles again before deleting them
1493:
1415:User:Herostratus/"Notable people" sections
1243:
1133:
1095:User:Ultraexactzz/Sorting Deletion Debates
810:User:Bibliomaniac15/A guide to closing CFD
753:
683:
663:
649:
641:
1395:User:Brainy J/No Exceptions to Notability
1380:User:Robert McClenon/Internet celebrities
1350:User:AliveFreeHappy/Notability (firearms)
462:2017 update – we still have some problems
361:if it happens then it does in fact happen
1365:User:Phil Sandifer/History of notability
740:User:Steve Smith/Semi-protection of BLPs
572:the original "fame and importance" ideas
414:I've seen a lot of further improvement.
399:
48:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
1569:Knowledge (XXG) essays about notability
1465:User:ReaderofthePack/YouTube notability
1280:User:Masem/Alternate Take on Notability
1275:User:Alex Noble/AFC is about notability
1085:User:Tisane/Don't delete users' résumés
1030:User:Simon Dodd/Some AFD considerations
237:, but they simply don't go far enough.
216:are still using them in AfD as we speak
208:multiple, independent, reliable sources
1445:User:Esquivalience/Essay on notability
1290:User:ReaderofthePack/Author notability
1065:User:Syrenka V/Protection not deletion
955:User:Mike Cline/Archimedes was deleted
925:User:K50 Dude/Essay on Speedy Deletion
920:User:Jh12/School articles and deletion
616:itself would make the page unwieldy.
512:This problem is why the proponents of
480:subject-specific notability guidelines
1410:User:Glades12/Notability is temporary
1055:User:Spartaz/Rescuing Deleted Content
980:User:Northamerica1000/Eager to delete
7:
1480:User:voorts/The spectrum of coverage
1060:User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up
1120:User:Yunshui/Deletion for beginners
715:User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism
247:concerted editor education campaign
155:when I arrived, had been blatantly
1455:User:Fleets/sandboxWPRL notability
1170:User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem
915:User:Isomorphic/Essays/Deletionism
845:User:Davidwr/Deleting GA+ articles
566:This would effectively import the
52:thoroughly vetted by the community
24:
1340:User:Basket of Puppies/Editorials
1295:User:Gryllida/BiographyNotability
1139:User essays on dispute resolution
1110:User:Vermont/essay/AfD Filibuster
945:User:Martijn Hoekstra/what is AfD
935:User:Lenticel/Deletion isn't Evil
930:User:KGirlTrucker81/What G1 isn't
730:User:Mattinbgn/BLP considerations
1440:User:RoySmith/Three best sources
1305:User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism
1150:User:AGK/Arbitration and content
1020:User:RoySmith/Three best sources
975:User:NeoFreak/Essays/Deletionism
835:User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism
705:User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem
374:notability guideline of sorts.
65:
29:
1190:User:Guy Macon/One against many
1070:User:Terrariola/Delete the junk
1035:User:Seraphimblade/Deletion FAQ
880:User:Ginkgo100/Speedy deletions
830:User:Champion/Deletion is cheap
815:User:Buddy431/AFD isn't cleanup
583:articles, since it's a form of
474:the GNG. Despite that hiccup,
175:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Notability
1175:User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur
1075:User:The Cunctator/Deletionism
1010:User:Ritchie333/The Dumpy test
885:User:Graymornings/Have a heart
865:User:Fl/Reports/RevisionDelete
805:User:Balloonman/CSD G10 survey
282:AfD has other problems, though
245:I think it is going to take a
145:process of deleting articles.
138:and to an extent still remains
1:
1470:User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/3
1405:User:Esquivalience/Notability
1385:User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable
1000:User:RileyBugz/G11 and drafts
995:User:Randy Kryn/Rule of thumb
875:User:Ginkgo100/AFD philosophy
800:User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey
795:User:Balloonman/CSD A7 survey
790:User:Balloonman/CSD A1 survey
550:
458:22:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
1220:Knowledge (XXG):Unblockables
1025:User:Sebwite/Mock Afd Series
710:User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP
577:distributed primary sourcing
436:what it isn't supposed to be
301:candiate for speedy deletion
212:primary notability criterion
104:"exclusivist"/"exclusionist"
1390:User:Trackinfo/sandbox/NHSL
1200:User:Robert McClenon/Crisis
965:User:Mr.Z-man/on fixing CSD
420:general notability criteria
1585:
1420:User:Uncle G/On notability
1205:User:RGloucester/Sanctions
855:User:Elaragirl/Deletionism
486:should just be nuked (but
261:" they may be), unless an
221:I agree that most (though
149:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
1535:
1503:
1492:
1320:User:Bahamut0013/deletion
1255:
1249:User essays on notability
1242:
1210:User:Skomorokh/First rule
1145:
1132:
940:User:Livitup/Deletion FAQ
825:User:Spartaz/Closing AFDs
765:
752:
695:
682:
514:WP:Notability (academics)
349:non-AfD-actionable advice
323:Loose ends, and a way out
1518:Letters from the editors
1225:User:AGK/AE improvements
1040:User:Shereth/Deletionism
890:User:Hellboy2hell/Delete
592:and compliance with the
579:. It could not be used
268:I've never heard of this
231:the nature of notability
73:This page in a nutshell:
1559:User essays on deletion
759:User essays on deletion
735:User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock
557:for notability purposes
488:could be given new life
484:as they stand right now
198:, problems with WP:N's
151:(WP:N) was very nearly
594:article title criteria
496:likely to pass the GNG
235:what not to say in AfD
297:Strong, speedy delete
190:Yet AfD abuse remains
115:one, but that it got
50:, as it has not been
780:User:Angela/Deletion
588:titles: determining
551:What's the solution?
400:#A proposed solution
127:Cleaning up the mess
1460:User:Moray An Par/b
466:The GNC is now the
241:A proposed solution
689:User essays on BLP
1546:
1545:
1531:
1530:
1488:
1487:
1238:
1237:
1128:
1127:
748:
747:
605:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
585:original research
456:
353:likely to survive
98:
80:
79:
60:
59:
1576:
1494:
1244:
1134:
950:User:MBisanz/AfD
754:
684:
677:
665:
658:
651:
642:
637:
610:WP:Verifiability
457:
451:
450:
305:does not make a
172:
166:
94:
69:
68:
62:
33:
32:
26:
18:User:SMcCandlish
1584:
1583:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1542:
1527:
1499:
1498:Humorous essays
1484:
1450:User:Fleets/RLN
1251:
1234:
1141:
1124:
761:
744:
691:
678:
669:
635:
619:
553:
464:
445:
439:
412:
388:
337:direct conflict
325:
284:
272:I don't like it
243:
223:by no means all
192:
170:
164:
129:
111:out that there
88:Deletion policy
66:
56:
55:
44:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1582:
1580:
1572:
1571:
1566:
1561:
1551:
1550:
1544:
1543:
1536:
1533:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1526:
1525:
1520:
1515:
1513:Avoid headings
1510:
1504:
1501:
1500:
1497:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1485:
1483:
1482:
1477:
1472:
1467:
1462:
1457:
1452:
1447:
1442:
1437:
1432:
1427:
1422:
1417:
1412:
1407:
1402:
1397:
1392:
1387:
1382:
1377:
1372:
1367:
1362:
1357:
1352:
1347:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1327:
1322:
1317:
1312:
1307:
1302:
1297:
1292:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1262:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1235:
1233:
1232:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1202:
1197:
1192:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1137:
1130:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1123:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1037:
1032:
1027:
1022:
1017:
1012:
1007:
1002:
997:
992:
987:
982:
977:
972:
967:
962:
957:
952:
947:
942:
937:
932:
927:
922:
917:
912:
907:
902:
897:
892:
887:
882:
877:
872:
867:
862:
857:
852:
847:
842:
837:
832:
827:
822:
817:
812:
807:
802:
797:
792:
787:
782:
777:
772:
766:
763:
762:
757:
750:
749:
746:
745:
743:
742:
737:
732:
727:
722:
717:
712:
707:
702:
696:
693:
692:
687:
680:
679:
670:
668:
667:
660:
653:
645:
633:
582:
569:
562:
561:for notability
558:
552:
549:
548:
547:
522:
519:
508:
497:
485:
477:
473:
472:alternative to
463:
460:
425:
411:
408:
387:
384:
324:
321:
283:
280:
242:
239:
191:
188:
168:Disputedpolicy
128:
125:
100:
99:
78:
77:
70:
58:
57:
45:
36:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1581:
1570:
1567:
1565:
1562:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1554:
1540:
1534:
1524:
1521:
1519:
1516:
1514:
1511:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1495:
1491:
1481:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1468:
1466:
1463:
1461:
1458:
1456:
1453:
1451:
1448:
1446:
1443:
1441:
1438:
1436:
1433:
1431:
1428:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1418:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1408:
1406:
1403:
1401:
1398:
1396:
1393:
1391:
1388:
1386:
1383:
1381:
1378:
1376:
1373:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1363:
1361:
1358:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1348:
1346:
1343:
1341:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1303:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1283:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1263:
1261:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1241:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1203:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1131:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1023:
1021:
1018:
1016:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1003:
1001:
998:
996:
993:
991:
988:
986:
983:
981:
978:
976:
973:
971:
968:
966:
963:
961:
958:
956:
953:
951:
948:
946:
943:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
916:
913:
911:
908:
906:
903:
901:
898:
896:
893:
891:
888:
886:
883:
881:
878:
876:
873:
871:
868:
866:
863:
861:
858:
856:
853:
851:
848:
846:
843:
841:
838:
836:
833:
831:
828:
826:
823:
821:
818:
816:
813:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
796:
793:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
771:
768:
767:
764:
760:
755:
751:
741:
738:
736:
733:
731:
728:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
708:
706:
703:
701:
700:User:DGG/bios
698:
697:
694:
690:
685:
681:
673:
666:
661:
659:
654:
652:
647:
646:
643:
639:
631:
628:
625:
624:
617:
615:
614:WP:Notability
611:
606:
602:
601:WP:Notability
597:
595:
591:
590:WP:COMMONNAME
586:
580:
578:
573:
570:good part of
567:
564:
560:
556:
546:
544:
536:
532:
528:
523:
521:
517:
515:
506:
504:
503:
502:
499:
495:
493:
489:
483:
481:
475:
471:
469:
461:
459:
454:
448:
444:
443:
437:
433:
429:
423:
421:
417:
409:
407:
405:
401:
397:
393:
385:
383:
381:
377:
373:
370:, which is a
369:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
341:
338:
334:
330:
322:
320:
318:
314:
309:
308:
302:
298:
294:
289:
281:
279:
277:
273:
269:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
240:
238:
236:
232:
228:
224:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:raison d'etre
189:
187:
184:
180:
176:
169:
161:
158:
154:
150:
146:
144:
139:
135:
126:
124:
122:
118:
114:
109:
108:"deletionist"
105:
97:
93:
92:
91:
90:
89:
85:
74:
71:
64:
63:
53:
49:
43:
41:
35:
28:
27:
19:
984:
622:
618:
598:
576:
565:
554:
539:
511:
510:controversy.
500:
465:
440:
413:
403:
389:
371:
365:
360:
356:
352:
348:
342:
336:
326:
316:
312:
304:
296:
295:", or even "
292:
287:
285:
275:
262:
258:
254:
246:
244:
226:
222:
220:
215:
211:
207:
199:
195:
193:
178:
171:}}
165:{{
162:
147:
137:
130:
120:
112:
101:
95:
82:
81:
72:
37:
1564:User essays
1539:User essays
672:User essays
623:SMcCandlish
543:independent
535:Chipo Chung
531:Discogs.com
442:SMcCandlish
410:2012 update
396:User:Daduzi
386:2010 update
200:application
38:This is an
1553:Categories
1537:Note: The
563:purposes.
518:supersedes
368:neologisms
319:, please.
263:actionable
183:subjective
157:editwarred
84:Notability
507:thousands
307:consensus
278:" posts.
204:2004-2006
453:Contribs
372:de facto
251:"!votes"
121:a little
113:had been
482:(SNGs)
428:WP:AADD
392:WP:AADD
276:Comment
153:"owned"
76:bottom.
674:
636:ⱷ<
632:>ⱷ҅
492:WP:GNG
468:WP:GNG
432:WP:MFD
380:WP:NFT
376:WP:NOT
333:Policy
329:WP:DEL
313:delete
293:Delete
288:delete
259:Speedy
257:" or "
255:Strong
449:ʕ(ل)ˀ
447:Talk⇒
227:valid
210:(the
117:AfD'd
40:essay
16:<
568:only
527:IMDb
476:most
438:. —
424:down
416:WP:N
378:and
233:and
179:long
106:and
86:and
676:(?)
529:or
143:AfD
1555::
620:—
581:in
404:do
134:NN
664:e
657:t
650:v
634:ᴥ
630:¢
627:☏
455:.
291:"
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.