109:
then 10 equally well argued keep votes because you personally feel the delete vote was slightly more valid. The art of closing discussions is to be able to weigh the competing arguments and to recognise what arguments are based on policy and what arguments are not. Ah, but its not as easy as that, because a local consensus does not over-ride a global consensus on how to deal with particular types of article. So a discussion that clearly shows a numerical consensus to delete an article on a primary school is actually the wrong outcome as there is a global consensus to redirect/merge these articles into the pages of the school district/local education authority. Also a local consensus to keep something because its really cool and interesting isn't going to fly if there are no reliable sources because the global consensus is that we expect articles to be
260:
simply descends into "Oh no they aren't/Oh yes they are"? Admins need to avoid supervotes but they are allowed to find on matters of fact. If the source provided is clearly inadequate then you can rely on your own interpretation but if the source is questionable then a discussion of its merits is a much safer way to find the consensus. Relist and direct and, if necessary, ask some RS experts to contribute to the discussion to help with resolving the issue. If, having tried this, the source is still unclear and the AFD has not come to a clear outcome on the source then you need to close as "no-consensus".
64:
208:, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
97:
content and want to delete everything. Okay the descriptions are a joke but demonstrate how polarised the divide is becoming. Of course there is a middle way of just closing everything as "no-consensus" or taking the easy way out of counting noses in the discussion but this generally doesn't adhere to what we consider to be a consensus in
Knowledge (XXG).
31:
79:
399:
about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
900:
398:
Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region
96:
can be a difficult and stressful area for administrators to work in, not just because of the difficulty of weighing competing arguments but also because AFD is caught right in the middle of an internecine battle between those that want to keep crappy articles come what may and those vandals who hate
1303:
380:
newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a
247:
Sources are generally the key issue for finding consensus. GNG says that non-notable articles will be deleted. Notability mostly derives from the sources and even when notability is assumed by the application of a sub-guidelines those guidelines have been reached by working out whether meeting them
108:
in the
Knowledge (XXG) model is the process of weighing arguments against policy to decide which arguments are the most valid and therefore win the discussion. Consensus is not reached by counting the number of votes but it would be foolish to decide that one well argued delete vote was more worthy
240:
A topic for which this criterion is deemed to have been met by consensus, is usually worthy of notice, and satisfies one of the criteria for a stand-alone article in the encyclopedia. Verifiable facts and content not supported by multiple independent sources may be appropriate for inclusion within
133:
Now for the slightly controversial discussion. It's also important to understand about voting blocks and how they might affect the outcome of AFDs. Listing an article for rescue for example is likely to lead to a number of votes by members of the article rescue squadron who generally vote to keep
259:
One problem for a closing admin is assessing the sources. Should they make their mind up on them (bearing in mind that most admins are far more experienced in policy then the average user) or should they go with the discussion. What if the discussion doesn't discuss the nature of the sources but
138:
where the consensus is lost in recriminations and counter-claims. The important part here is that most AFDs get closed around notability arguments and having an influx of users knowledgeable about the subject or adapt in finding sources is useful. Just ignore any arguments not based in policy,
425:
constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as
142:
After a while working on AFDs its possible to get a clear feel for the way that regular AFD participants will go and when they vote different to the norm it is worth reading their comments extra carefully as these are the ones that often shed the most light on the overall consensus.
1270:
124:
There has also been a recent trend for discussions not to centre around policy and this makes closing very difficult as whole sections of the discussion might be worthless in helping you understand the policy based consensus. Discussions like this are good candidates to be
955:
580:
139:
ban/block/mute anyone attacking other editors and just concentrate on the sources provided and whether they cut the mustard for notability. If there are decent sources then the consensus is clear and, if there are not, then the consensus is also clear.
1055:
705:
471:
228:
establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate
910:
70:
This essay discusses the recommended way for admins to close AFDs. The views contained in this essay will not reflect every admins' approach and preferences but it is hoped that through editing a wider consensus to how to do this should emerge.
129:
but you would be advised to give the participants some direction on what the closing admin will need to find the consensus next time round. If this doesn't work then the discussion is almost certainly doomed to be closed as "no-consensus"
248:
means that sources are likely to exist. This means that a very thorough search for sources that includes trips to a library and/or scouring on-line sources is a basic requirement for deleting an article. Actual sources that pass muster
1125:
1080:
1165:
655:
87:
Admins are supposed to approach closing AFDs in a semi-judicial manner, parsing arguments against policy and trying to avoid allowing personal preferences to over-ride the consensus of the discussion. (supervoting).
700:
1120:
1025:
134:
content as its the kind of project that tends to attract hard-core inclusionists. Also nationalistic articles often attract participants from those areas and discussions often fall into a nasty argumentative
1230:
1220:
665:
515:
1318:
755:
695:
1130:
980:
765:
570:
1060:
785:
960:
950:
885:
810:
1150:
690:
1195:
635:
520:
880:
1095:
615:
1210:
1170:
1105:
1140:
845:
780:
1225:
1065:
1010:
895:
645:
1313:
1155:
875:
840:
565:
800:
990:
1110:
975:
934:
890:
605:
1190:
1175:
1145:
1160:
535:
1260:
1075:
1070:
825:
1240:
1085:
860:
750:
720:
715:
180:
is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
1205:
850:
775:
458:
1275:
855:
230:
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
730:
725:
47:
640:
915:
510:
198:
works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
1250:
1044:
965:
710:
610:
408:
Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also:
256:
fail if the delete side show that they haven't found any by a thorough search and no actual sources are adduced in the discussion.
1135:
1090:
905:
740:
525:
409:
205:
177:
1359:
1235:
1100:
945:
815:
770:
630:
554:
500:
163:
1308:
985:
865:
830:
675:
625:
970:
870:
805:
680:
660:
600:
1265:
1200:
1180:
795:
790:
670:
595:
590:
585:
214:
excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising,
422:
191:
159:
820:
505:
1185:
995:
760:
484:
1215:
1000:
650:
187:
1115:
1005:
735:
451:
1015:
135:
1020:
835:
685:
166:
of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.
530:
901:
User:Vanished user 909146283013/Follow the WP:EPISODE guideline and make AfD easier for articles that don't
467:
105:
51:
1354:
1334:
575:
444:
1255:
126:
39:
349:
331:
1271:
User:MichaelQSchmidt/The general notability guide versus subject-specific notability guidelines
63:
745:
956:
User:ASCIIn2Bme/Verifiability and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers
215:
152:
114:
1245:
362:
427:
335:
225:
118:
1304:
Assume the assumption of the assumption of the assumption of the assumption of bad faith
581:
User:Aspening/Just because something is unflattering doesn't mean it should be deleted
110:
1348:
495:
1056:
User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the
General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
706:
User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the
General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
54:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
340:
325:
17:
911:
User:ViperSnake151/Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (Human
Readable Version)
1337:
category page has many more, listed below the subcategories section on the pages.
195:
1126:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume lasting significance for instances of self-harm
252:
trump a majority argument that they don't exist. Assertions of sources will
1081:
User:Chrislk02/anarticleaboutaschoolthatcantfindagermanteacherisnotnotable
1166:
User:Mike Cline/Imagining a new way to look at the question of
Notability
656:
User:Emmette
Hernandez Coleman/Deleting redirects to facilitate searching
320:
are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band
316:
Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on
1121:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume lasting significance for crime articles
1026:
User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims
436:
1231:
User:Geo Swan/Evaluating notability for lesser prizes and awards
1292:
1042:
932:
666:
User:Geo Swan/opinions/editing Fahd al
Jutayli while before Afd
552:
516:
User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Academic and artistic biographies
482:
440:
317:
218:
material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
176:
means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so
73:
25:
766:
User:NawlinWiki/List of things that will get speedily deleted
571:
User:AleatoryPonderings/Systemic bias in deletion discussions
756:
User:Mike Cline/The
Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates
1221:
User:PorkchopGMX/Popularity doesn’t always equal notability
1131:
User:MalwareSmarts/Don't confuse non-notability with a hoax
1061:
User:Philtweir/Academic communities articles and notability
701:
User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists"
981:
User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions 2013–2018 review
786:
User:Puzzledvegetable/DINC alone is not a reason to keep
1196:
User:Davidwr/No topic deserves to be in Knowledge (XXG)
951:
User:Alexia Death/Community Court for community issues
886:
User:Tothwolf/rescued essays/AfD: formula for conflict
811:
User:Robofish/Thoughts on inclusionism and deletionism
1151:
User:League Octopus/Club notability tables (and test)
696:
User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists"
691:
User:Hiding/Points to note regarding deletion debates
636:
User:Davidwr/Choosing SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD deletion
521:
User:This is Paul/Articles concerning criminal acts
1096:User:Czarkoff/essays/Businesses are rarely notable
1319:Nomination of Knowledge (XXG) for speedy deletion
158::If a topic has received significant coverage in
1171:User:Davidwr/Inherent Notability as a slang term
1106:User:ReaderofthePack/Common notability arguments
961:User:ASCIIn2Bme/What "no consensus" really means
186:means sources need editorial integrity to allow
1141:User:Anon126/Explaining notability to newcomers
991:User:Orlady/Getting your way at Knowledge (XXG)
846:User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion
781:User:SMcCandlish/Notability and Deletion policy
1226:User:RoySmith/essays/Presumption of Notability
1066:User:Robert McClenon/Acceptance of Biographies
1011:User:The Bushranger/Lob a grenade and run away
896:User:Ultraexactzz/Time-delayed Speedy Deletion
646:User:Eire2020/WP:On the subject of deletionism
616:User:The Bushranger/Don't move articles at AfD
385:required to be available online, and they are
1156:User:ArsenalFan700/Indian Football Notability
876:User:Tisane/Allow viewing of deleted articles
841:User:SoWhy/Before tagging for speedy deletion
566:User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves
452:
8:
801:User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7
1111:User:Lagrange613/Coverage is not notability
976:User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal
1289:
1211:User:Herostratus/"Notable people" sections
1039:
929:
891:User:Ultraexactzz/Sorting Deletion Debates
606:User:Bibliomaniac15/A guide to closing CFD
549:
479:
459:
445:
437:
1191:User:Brainy J/No Exceptions to Notability
1176:User:Robert McClenon/Internet celebrities
1146:User:AliveFreeHappy/Notability (firearms)
1161:User:Phil Sandifer/History of notability
536:User:Steve Smith/Semi-protection of BLPs
48:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies or guidelines
1261:User:ReaderofthePack/YouTube notability
1076:User:Masem/Alternate Take on Notability
1071:User:Alex Noble/AFC is about notability
881:User:Tisane/Don't delete users' résumés
826:User:Simon Dodd/Some AFD considerations
309:
1241:User:Esquivalience/Essay on notability
1086:User:ReaderofthePack/Author notability
861:User:Syrenka V/Protection not deletion
751:User:Mike Cline/Archimedes was deleted
721:User:K50 Dude/Essay on Speedy Deletion
716:User:Jh12/School articles and deletion
358:
347:
1206:User:Glades12/Notability is temporary
851:User:Spartaz/Rescuing Deleted Content
776:User:Northamerica1000/Eager to delete
7:
1276:User:voorts/The spectrum of coverage
856:User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up
410:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest
381:comprehensive article. Sources are
916:User:Yunshui/Deletion for beginners
511:User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism
204:for notability purposes, should be
1251:User:Fleets/sandboxWPRL notability
966:User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem
711:User:Isomorphic/Essays/Deletionism
641:User:Davidwr/Deleting GA+ articles
52:thoroughly vetted by the community
24:
1136:User:Basket of Puppies/Editorials
1091:User:Gryllida/BiographyNotability
935:User essays on dispute resolution
906:User:Vermont/essay/AfD Filibuster
741:User:Martijn Hoekstra/what is AfD
731:User:Lenticel/Deletion isn't Evil
726:User:KGirlTrucker81/What G1 isn't
526:User:Mattinbgn/BLP considerations
1236:User:RoySmith/Three best sources
1101:User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism
946:User:AGK/Arbitration and content
816:User:RoySmith/Three best sources
771:User:NeoFreak/Essays/Deletionism
631:User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism
501:User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem
412:for handling of such situations.
284:Alternatives to Deletion/Keeping
224:means that significant coverage
77:
62:
29:
986:User:Guy Macon/One against many
866:User:Terrariola/Delete the junk
831:User:Seraphimblade/Deletion FAQ
676:User:Ginkgo100/Speedy deletions
626:User:Champion/Deletion is cheap
611:User:Buddy431/AFD isn't cleanup
971:User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur
871:User:The Cunctator/Deletionism
806:User:Ritchie333/The Dumpy test
681:User:Graymornings/Have a heart
661:User:Fl/Reports/RevisionDelete
601:User:Balloonman/CSD G10 survey
421:Moreover, not all coverage in
190:evaluation of notability, per
1:
1266:User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/3
1201:User:Esquivalience/Notability
1181:User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable
796:User:RileyBugz/G11 and drafts
791:User:Randy Kryn/Rule of thumb
671:User:Ginkgo100/AFD philosophy
596:User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey
591:User:Balloonman/CSD A7 survey
586:User:Balloonman/CSD A1 survey
336:"Tough love child of Kennedy"
192:the reliable source guideline
1016:Knowledge (XXG):Unblockables
821:User:Sebwite/Mock Afd Series
506:User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP
299:Users challenging your close
212:"Independent of the subject"
1186:User:Trackinfo/sandbox/NHSL
996:User:Robert McClenon/Crisis
761:User:Mr.Z-man/on fixing CSD
231:what Knowledge (XXG) is not
1376:
1216:User:Uncle G/On notability
1001:User:RGloucester/Sanctions
651:User:Elaragirl/Deletionism
389:required to be in English.
1331:
1299:
1288:
1116:User:Bahamut0013/deletion
1051:
1045:User essays on notability
1038:
1006:User:Skomorokh/First rule
941:
928:
736:User:Livitup/Deletion FAQ
621:User:Spartaz/Closing AFDs
561:
548:
491:
478:
1314:Letters from the editors
1021:User:AGK/AE improvements
836:User:Shereth/Deletionism
686:User:Hellboy2hell/Delete
194:. Sources may encompass
153:the notability guideline
85:This page in a nutshell:
1360:User essays on deletion
555:User essays on deletion
531:User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock
269:Assessing BLP Arguments
357:Check date values in:
174:"Significant coverage"
367:) is plainly trivial.
50:, as it has not been
576:User:Angela/Deletion
178:no original research
1256:User:Moray An Par/b
226:in reliable sources
151:This directly from
485:User essays on BLP
378:but not limited to
324:in a biography of
1342:
1341:
1327:
1326:
1284:
1283:
1034:
1033:
924:
923:
544:
543:
206:secondary sources
147:Assessing Sources
91:
90:
68: In progress
60:
59:
1367:
1290:
1040:
930:
746:User:MBisanz/AfD
550:
480:
473:
461:
454:
447:
438:
431:
428:reliable sources
423:reliable sources
419:
413:
406:
400:
396:
390:
374:
368:
366:
360:
355:
353:
345:
322:Three Blind Mice
314:
241:another article.
160:reliable sources
81:
80:
74:
66:
33:
32:
26:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1338:
1323:
1295:
1294:Humorous essays
1280:
1246:User:Fleets/RLN
1047:
1030:
937:
920:
557:
540:
487:
474:
465:
435:
434:
420:
416:
407:
403:
397:
393:
375:
371:
356:
346:
330:Martin Walker (
329:
315:
311:
306:
301:
296:
294:Deletion Review
291:
286:
281:
276:
271:
266:
149:
103:
78:
56:
55:
44:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1373:
1371:
1363:
1362:
1357:
1347:
1346:
1340:
1339:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1324:
1322:
1321:
1316:
1311:
1309:Avoid headings
1306:
1300:
1297:
1296:
1293:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1263:
1258:
1253:
1248:
1243:
1238:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1203:
1198:
1193:
1188:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1168:
1163:
1158:
1153:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1113:
1108:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1083:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1058:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1043:
1036:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1008:
1003:
998:
993:
988:
983:
978:
973:
968:
963:
958:
953:
948:
942:
939:
938:
933:
926:
925:
922:
921:
919:
918:
913:
908:
903:
898:
893:
888:
883:
878:
873:
868:
863:
858:
853:
848:
843:
838:
833:
828:
823:
818:
813:
808:
803:
798:
793:
788:
783:
778:
773:
768:
763:
758:
753:
748:
743:
738:
733:
728:
723:
718:
713:
708:
703:
698:
693:
688:
683:
678:
673:
668:
663:
658:
653:
648:
643:
638:
633:
628:
623:
618:
613:
608:
603:
598:
593:
588:
583:
578:
573:
568:
562:
559:
558:
553:
546:
545:
542:
541:
539:
538:
533:
528:
523:
518:
513:
508:
503:
498:
492:
489:
488:
483:
476:
475:
466:
464:
463:
456:
449:
441:
433:
432:
414:
401:
391:
369:
308:
307:
305:
302:
300:
297:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
282:
280:
277:
275:
272:
270:
267:
265:
262:
245:
244:
237:
236:
235:
234:
219:
216:self-published
209:
199:
181:
148:
145:
102:
99:
89:
88:
82:
58:
57:
45:
36:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1372:
1361:
1358:
1356:
1353:
1352:
1350:
1336:
1330:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1298:
1291:
1287:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1257:
1254:
1252:
1249:
1247:
1244:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1199:
1197:
1194:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1177:
1174:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1129:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1104:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1074:
1072:
1069:
1067:
1064:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1037:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
987:
984:
982:
979:
977:
974:
972:
969:
967:
964:
962:
959:
957:
954:
952:
949:
947:
944:
943:
940:
936:
931:
927:
917:
914:
912:
909:
907:
904:
902:
899:
897:
894:
892:
889:
887:
884:
882:
879:
877:
874:
872:
869:
867:
864:
862:
859:
857:
854:
852:
849:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
829:
827:
824:
822:
819:
817:
814:
812:
809:
807:
804:
802:
799:
797:
794:
792:
789:
787:
784:
782:
779:
777:
774:
772:
769:
767:
764:
762:
759:
757:
754:
752:
749:
747:
744:
742:
739:
737:
734:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
717:
714:
712:
709:
707:
704:
702:
699:
697:
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
682:
679:
677:
674:
672:
669:
667:
664:
662:
659:
657:
654:
652:
649:
647:
644:
642:
639:
637:
634:
632:
629:
627:
624:
622:
619:
617:
614:
612:
609:
607:
604:
602:
599:
597:
594:
592:
589:
587:
584:
582:
579:
577:
574:
572:
569:
567:
564:
563:
560:
556:
551:
547:
537:
534:
532:
529:
527:
524:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
496:User:DGG/bios
494:
493:
490:
486:
481:
477:
469:
462:
457:
455:
450:
448:
443:
442:
439:
429:
424:
418:
415:
411:
405:
402:
395:
392:
388:
384:
379:
373:
370:
364:
351:
343:
342:
337:
333:
327:
323:
319:
313:
310:
303:
298:
293:
289:wikilawyering
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
263:
261:
257:
255:
251:
243:
239:
238:
232:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
210:
207:
203:
200:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
165:
161:
155:
154:
146:
144:
140:
137:
131:
128:
122:
120:
116:
112:
107:
100:
98:
95:
86:
83:
76:
75:
72:
69:
65:
53:
49:
43:
41:
35:
28:
27:
19:
620:
417:
404:
394:
386:
382:
377:
372:
341:The Guardian
339:
326:Bill Clinton
321:
312:
258:
253:
249:
246:
242:
221:
211:
201:
183:
173:
157:
156:
150:
141:
136:battleground
132:
123:
104:
94:Closing AFDs
93:
92:
84:
67:
61:
37:
18:User:Spartaz
1355:User essays
1335:User essays
468:User essays
359:|date=
164:independent
38:This is an
1349:Categories
1333:Note: The
376:Including
332:1992-01-06
274:Canvassing
264:Supervotes
222:"Presumed"
202:"Sources,"
188:verifiable
184:"Reliable"
115:notability
111:verifiable
350:cite news
279:SPA votes
196:published
162:that are
117:requires
106:Consensus
101:Consensus
127:relisted
119:sources
470:
254:always
250:always
304:Notes
40:essay
16:<
363:help
113:and
472:(?)
387:not
383:not
334:).
318:IBM
121:.
1351::
354::
352:}}
348:{{
338:.
460:e
453:t
446:v
430:.
365:)
361:(
344:.
328:(
233:.
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
