900:- Eight additional reports in established international news media were just added to the article by Sad mouse, and so I ask that this entire debate be considered as part 1 (above this note) and part 2 (below), with part 1 being informative only and part 2 being operative. I do not understand the deletion arguments, but to the extent I do understand them, they do not seem to be based on actual Knowledge (XXG) policies or guidelines, or, in the case of "POV-pushing," do not specify the point of view which is said to have been pushed. As the accused pusher, I can't think of it, either.
307:. I have just read the external links added to the article after my first AfD comments, and I still believe that a standalone article is not warranted. The set of media articles don't even agree with each other—sometimes per capita calculations are used, and sometimes it is per GDP, so they really can't be used as a set of references for that "top 25" table of numbers. I think the most appropriate outcome for this discussion is a deletion of the article, but also the addition of no more than a brief paragraph of prose text (and no tables) to the
1347:: I agree with Wookie919, in fact, for an athlete in a big country it is more difficult to win a medal, because to qualify s/he has to get through a national-level competition in his own country. Knowledge (XXG) is not here to criticise anything, but to show how are things (remember that the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is that the former gives some insight into how things are, not just describing them). Showing the fact that the country gets more medals while the athletes have it harder is interesting.
1297:- where do we draw the line on statistics? If some journalist decides to post an article on "number of medals per head of cattle", or any other ranking method, should that have a seperate article also? It would be the same medal count shown in a different way. There is no clear link between population and number of medals (see China vs India vs Australia for example) so this ranking method is not significant. If it is substantially referenced give the system a brief paragraph and no more at
1005:. There's no reason to believe it's not NPOV (how would it be POV?), the information is well sourced - the above note provides even more - and it isn't OR. OR is referring to original research, such as a scientific paper I self-publish in my basement with no outside recognition. OR does not apply to this article. It's a perfectly reasonable statistic, and dividing two numbers is not OR. By that logic, you could call almost anything "per capita" POV and OR.
675:
be extensively invested in editing sporting articles, yet I don't accuse you of voting delete (and it does appear to just be a vote, since you didn't use any reasoning) just because the US performs poorly on a per capita basis. It would be polite to at least look into a user's history before assuming bad faith. Also
Australia is pretty much the only country that has almost the same rank by either measure, so I don't even understand what the agenda would be
1223:
there are many many hits. Your criteria for excluding articles was rather harsh (yes, obviously articles that were written during the games are "out of date" but the reference was to say that it was reported during the games; and an article basically summarising the LA Times table seems to me perfect evidence that the LA Times table was reported in the media), but it seems reasonable to cut it down to one or two good references
1107:, used to show where the table comes from, is the only source actually implemented in this article. The other eight are only used to say something along the lines of "don't delete this article as it is notable". It is simply ridiculous using EIGHT SOURCES to say "Other media sources reported on per-capita medals as well." Nonetheless, most (all actually) of the remaining eight citations are flawed:
569:. If a blog idea gets taken up by the main-stream media it becomes news and is no longer original research. The motive of Mr Mitchell is just as irrelevant as your person motive for blocking this, the point is that whether the idea was originally his or not it was widely reported in the media of multiple countries. It certainly doesn't violate
498:. (A quick check indicates that these sources still use the IOC tally, if not a total medal count) Nor do they have any common tallying method (for example, do they all get their population figures from the same source? Do they do medals/capita or golds/capita? etc.) They're ultimately op-ed pieces and violate
388:
definition. Madchester's stated position on inclusion "Unless I woke up tomorrow morning and every newspaper and news agency adopted such a medals/capita system, such content is not permissible on
Knowledge (XXG)" seems to be an unobtainable standard and indicates the bias of Madchester against such a system
1489:
There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information
282:
per all the comments repeatedly made for past articles. There are no reliable sources to support this type of article (the LA Time blog for this particular year is only a top 25 and does not state where they got their population numbers), and any attempt to extend or "improve" the list would clearly
674:
Poor form. I was born in
Australia and live in America. I have no idea where Neut Nuttinbutter (who made the article, not myself) is from. Have a look through my edit history, I have never edited a sporting article and I have never made any "pro-Australia" edits. You appear to be from America and to
564:
Your original issue was that no one in the main stream media cared about per capita tables. I found many articles to show that this position was incorrect. Now you change your issue to saying that main-stream media articles that discuss a concept originally brought up on an individual blog cannot be
1222:
Question - if your position is that it is not notable enough for its own independent page, then why do you advocate delete instead of merge? I'm sure the references could be improved, the eight I put in were just from a thirty second google news search, I saw longer and better articles in print and
1052:
That is not a complaint based on wikipedia policy. It would be original research to cite reasons why China and India have such different performance. One wonders how anyone could possibly assume that population doesn't play a role, but that is neither here nor there. Try not to base your assessment
752:
does deprecate the use of blogs but actually says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." LATimes is, I
807:. If large countries (i.e. the United States) were allowed to send a number of athletes in the same proportions as smaller countries (i.e. the Bahamas), perhaps such a article would make sense. As is, NOCs are restricted to one team in team events and one or two entrants in many individual events.
387:
in multiple media outlets and is therefore not original research. Citing precedent is not helpful, as the per capita tables did not make main-stream media in previous games and was therefore original research. In this games they did make main-stream media and are therefore not original research by
1492:
I believe a non-trivial number of people will consider this table useful because the table demonstrates that there is no clear link between population and the number of medals obtained. I fail to understand why you keep referring to the lack of link between the two variables as reasoning for the
1317:
The lack of link between population/medals is exactly the point of this table and that is exactly what makes this table useful. One might claim that more population would naturally increase the chance of finding better athletes, but this table gives some evidence to the contrary. (Hm, do certain
1195:
Finally, not pertinent to this AfD, but the article's title incorrect as well. If you name it "2008 Summer
Olympics medals per capita", the table should show show the ratio of medals per population, not the opposite. If this was ever to be kept, it should be renamed to something like "Ratio of
382:
a limited version into the main article. The article could easily be improved by adding any of the multiple main-stream media outlet references that referred to per capita medal counts. Trying to delete the article within minutes of creation does not give anyone the chance to add additional
1483:. Also I am sorry that I misled you with my final sentence above. I DO sound like I want to keep or merge the article just because it is useful. That is simply not true. I wouldn't have voted to keep or merge if I thought the article violated any of the wikipedia rules. Also according to
438:
Universal adoption is not and never has been the standard. Here are examples of main-stream media that discuss per capita winnings for 2008, as you can see there are many from different main-stream media outlets in multiple countries, this was just a small sample from a quick search:
513:. You can't use Source A and Source B to come to Conclusion C.... unless both sources independently reach the same Conclusion C. Right now, each of the alternative medal tallies listed have their own methodology and placements, so they're not reaching the same conclusion... --
1399:
it gives into this subject. It is not a phone list (useful, but no insight into anything). If this medal table is deleted, the same reasons would be good enough to delete all the other medal tables. Personally I would prefer to integrate this article as a section of the
212:
It says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." My understanding is that
1252:. The article simply shows statistics. It does not imply that this method of ranking is better nor does it imply that Bahamas should be ranked the top in the world. It's just the same medal count shown in a different way. It seems to me that
165:
160:
1330:, and I am equally happy with both. I also didn't say that the current ranking method should be criticized. I just don't want (what I believe to be) a useful form of statistical representation getting completely wiped from wikipedia.
155:
1318:
countries naturally have better athletes? Maybe.) Statistical representation can be used to show the link between two variables, but it can also be used to show the lack of such a link. I want to clarify that I didn't vote
573:
because nowhere does it claim this is a better or worse measure, it simply reports a measure which was widely discussed in the media. Just listing wikipedia policies doesn't mean much if your use of them is inappropriate.
48:. Policies and guidelines do not clearly favour either side. It's more about whether this is an appropriate statistic to include in an encyclopedia. The consensus here (albeit not an overwhelming one) is that is it not.
1017:. This is not original research (the data were already there), it is sourced, and it contains interesting information. Also, I don't see a reason why it should not be neutral: it has only information, not opinions.
713:
into the main article. The article is actually referenced, so there is actually no violation of OR as some insist, but there is no need to stand as an article on its own for fails notability compared to the main
601:
as it stands. The article currently uses total medals, rather than the official IOC G-S-B ratings, and as such is pretty much fluff. If a source can be found for a G-S-B ranking, Id like to see that information
235:. I will withdraw my request that you substantiate your baseless accusations of POV-pushing and a lack of reliable sources, and I hope you will withdraw the baseless accusations themselves, in the spirit of
824:: Not recognized and supported by experts and specialists in sport industry. Cannot simply calculate in the sense of economy (like GDP) as winning medals is subject to different factors and Olympic rules. -
190:
Nominator, given the eight additional international news media sources added by Sad mouse, do you stand by your accusations in this nomination? If so, which accusations in particular: OR, NPOV, and/or RS?
1038:
It tells us there is not direct relationship between no. of medals won and population of a country. Wining medals is subject to
Olympic entry rule and National Sport Policy of an individual nation. -
606:
per Reywas92. I dont believe it violates NOR or NPOV, but it definitely violates RS. It is worthwhile information, imo, and adding it as an aside into the official tally page might have some value.
91:
86:
95:
1099:. There really is not enough significant coverage to determine an independent article, considering the media amplitude of the Olympics. Note the following of the current nine citations:
78:
124:
1355:, a half-French half-Togolese kayaker, preferred to defend Togo's flag, because it was more difficult to qualify being French (and he later won the first medal ever for Togo).
409:
As I listed above, the article fails the three fundamental policy pillars of
Knowledge (XXG). Please don't take my analogy out of context, as it was in reference to following
1453:. It's just a table copied and pasted from a website! What insight does this article give...any derived conclusions are personal and are really quite unreasonable due to the "
660:- Per everything above. It should also be noted that the person defending this type of statistical format and article happens to be Australian. Seems kind of agenda-ish.
778:
Also, looking at the precedent none of those tabulations had a referenced source - hence why they were clearly OR and deletable. Hence the precedent doesn't apply here.
843:
1274:. A brief mention of criticism and/or alternate calculations is appropriate for the main medal table article; an entire standalone article on the topic is not. —
1036:
If population is significant, how can you answer why India (with 1.1 billion people) got 1 gold medal while China (with 1.3 billion people) get 51 gold medals.
1130:
Most of the rest of the world — other than those calculating by per capita or economic formulas, that is — renders its standings in order of gold medals won.
221:
and was on assignment under the direction of an editor at an established international news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
1113:
443:
916:
Note: Several affirmations of opinions have been made above this comment, but after the comment was posted. Please check timestamps of opinions above.
748:
This is deletionism taken to a senseless extreme. The article clearly isn't original research - the information is sourced to an external reference.
1270:
I disagree. The problem of neutrality is not so much about which method is "better" or not. I think the most relevant section of that policy is
1135:
311:
that discusses the criticism of the standard medal table, using some of these articles as cited references. Anything more than that would be
421:. If a medal/capita standard was universally adopted by the IOC and world press, then it would easily satisfy the three listed policies. --
1557:
1526:
1502:
1474:
1436:
1412:
1390:
1364:
1339:
1312:
1289:
1265:
1232:
1214:
1085:
1062:
1047:
1026:
1009:
995:
966:
944:
925:
909:
892:
875:
858:
833:
816:
799:
787:
770:
740:
723:
705:
684:
669:
652:
633:
615:
583:
555:
522:
479:
430:
401:
368:
352:
330:
298:
274:
252:
200:
179:
60:
456:
540:
I am currently hating the idea of China hosting the
Olympic Games. In fact, I am hating the Olympic Games concept these days in general
1507:
An entire article, or even just the table of 25 (or more) sets of numbers, is overkill if the point you wish to make is that there is
1077:
1039:
1490:
found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context.
1142:. The only way someone might have thought it is connected to a 2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita table is because when it says "
17:
1421:. These per-capita, per-GDP, per-whatever medal tables are clearly a minority view, not used by any major media organisations. —
1186:
935:, this does not "violate any number of policies". Its been reported on, and its a simple to calculate statistic. No OR involved. --
468:
1401:
1309:
1139:
702:
308:
263:
232:
82:
74:
66:
1158:
462:
1522:
1432:
1285:
326:
294:
753:
think we can agree, a reliable third party publication and the person who wrote the article Chuck
Culpepper is described
214:
1575:
494:
While these articles discuss different/alternative ways of tallying medals, none of them are actually practiced by any
36:
991:
905:
364:
248:
196:
444:
http://3news.co.nz/News/SportsNews/NewZealandawinnerperheadofpopulation/tabid/415/articleID/68358/cat/70/Default.aspx
869:
736:
566:
535:
206:
1418:
312:
1574:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
530:
As an add-on, most of these new stories discussing a medals/capita tally refer to the personal website of one
1104:
1446:
1081:
1043:
987:
901:
643:. Issue has been discussed over and over again. Clearly is not congruent with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies.
360:
346:
244:
192:
962:
732:
457:
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=47d1c547-967b-4ba3-ba0c-0735367c27a7
1169:
465:
1553:
1305:
698:
648:
551:
518:
426:
175:
1122:
one is about the "cost" of New
Zealand's medals and only makes a trivial statement of their ranking.
538:, we avoid using personal websites as reliable sources. On his site, Mr. Mitchell also states that
1498:
1468:
1384:
1335:
1298:
1261:
1228:
1208:
1181:
1058:
936:
888:
796:
680:
579:
475:
440:
397:
228:
1484:
1370:
1006:
1163:
940:
783:
766:
754:
665:
272:
1076:
It is conceptual incorrect. How can I go further to discuss if any violation of Wiki policies. -
469:
http://www.montsame.mn/index.php?option=com_news&task=news_detail&tab=200808&ne=1277
1516:
1426:
1352:
1279:
853:
829:
719:
341:
320:
288:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1271:
1253:
757:
as a "lead sports columnist" - sounds like an established expert to me. The final argument -
570:
543:
503:
410:
135:
957:
812:
1125:
510:
499:
418:
357:
236:
131:
1549:
1493:
table not being useful, when in fact it is the table that shows the lack of relationship.
1408:
1360:
1302:
1256:
is being violated by people who want to delete this article more than the article itself.
1119:
1022:
921:
695:
644:
629:
611:
547:
514:
453:
422:
171:
1053:
on whether you agree with the article but on whether it violates any wikipedia policies.
983:
953:
749:
495:
414:
240:
139:
1417:...as long as the amount of content "integrated" into the main article does not give it
463:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/wires/08/21/2090.ap.oly.inside.the.rings/
459:
1494:
1459:
1395:
If you read my comment you will see I was not speaking about usefulness, but about the
1375:
1331:
1257:
1249:
1224:
1199:
1054:
884:
676:
575:
471:
393:
51:
1096:
979:
779:
762:
661:
531:
267:
205:
Given your refusal to tell me what position I am trying to advance, your citation of
883:. Additional references added and proposed merge format display on discussion page.
1512:
1422:
1275:
850:
825:
715:
316:
284:
166:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Olympic Medal
Statistics: Medal Count Winners
161:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2004 Summer Olympics Medals Earned Per Capita
112:
1176:. If this article is kept, then an article of "medals per GDP" should be created.
1144:
On a medal-per-capita basis, Canada easily outranks the two Olympic superpowers.
808:
383:
references. While this system of counting is not as common as simple totals, it
1150:
Two sources have nothing with "medals per captia", as they discuss "medals per
1480:
1404:
1356:
1018:
917:
625:
607:
1373:, not considering whether the article meets or not any notability criteria. —
156:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/1996 Summer Olympics medals per capita
144:
978:
not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as described in
867:
pushing a POV, there are disparancies in the world, thats it. Per nom
1116:
only discusses New Zealand's position in the medal count per capita.
466:
http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=3995
1509:
no clear link between population and the number of medals obtained
1479:
First of all I think you are confusing between wookie919 (me) and
151:
Please see past AFDs about similar Olympic medal sorting schemes:
1511:. A sentence of prose text in the main article would suffice. —
1568:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
758:
441:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/23/content_9653160.htm
1151:
262:
Perhaps the top five are worth a mention in the main article
1548:. Published sources != notable as an encyclopedia article.
1034:: GDP and winning medals are subject to different factors.
506:
for pushing a specific opinion not shared by the majority.
1369:
That really sounds like you are calling for a keep just
454:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4667484a6009.html
210:
119:
108:
104:
100:
460:
http://www.theolympian.com/olympics/story/557404.html
390:
regardless of how it meets actual wikipedia criteria
1445:" is not a reason to keep an article, according to
1196:population per medal of the 2008 Summer Olympics".
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1578:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1109:Many of the sources in the article are trivial.
1189:is basically a summary of the table from the
8:
266:, but there is no need for its own article.
142:for using a blog entry (albeit one from the
844:list of Sports-related deletion discussions
1128:only refers to "per capita" when it says "
565:used. This is absolutely not the point of
1299:Olympic medal table#Other ranking systems
229:Olympic medal table#Other ranking systems
842:: This debate has been included in the
1097:Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines
1455:lack of link between population/medals
75:2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita
67:2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita
243:. Thank you for your consideration.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1154:", something completely different:
761:- is a poor argument for deletion.
694:- violates any number of policies.
1443:insight it gives into this subject
795:: Per precedent & policy vio.
509:I think this situation also fails
24:
309:2008 Summer Olympics medal table
264:2008 Summer Olympics medal table
233:2008 Summer Olympics medal table
148:) for its only page reference.
138:for pushing a minority POV and
1138:is an article criticizing the
378:or, by Reywas92's suggestion,
1:
215:Culpepper has been with the
1558:16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1527:09:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1503:09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1475:07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1449:. By the way, this article
1437:07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1413:07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1391:06:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1365:13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1340:05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1313:03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1290:00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1266:00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1233:03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
1215:23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1086:10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
1063:19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1048:14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1027:13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1010:23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
996:00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
967:20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
945:19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
926:05:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
910:16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
893:15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
876:14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
859:14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
834:13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
817:13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
800:13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
788:13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
771:13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
741:12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
724:10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
706:02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
685:03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
670:02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
653:01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
634:05:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
616:01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
584:01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
556:00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
523:00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
480:00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
431:00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
402:00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
369:16:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
353:23:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
331:23:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
299:23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
275:23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
253:12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
201:16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
180:23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
61:19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1595:
225:Compromise proposal: merge
1248:. I basically agree with
1146:" Again, trvial coverage.
283:be original research. —
1571:Please do not modify it.
731:: Per everything above.
32:Please do not modify it.
952:. Absolutely fails the
871:Monster Under Your Bed
898:Note to closing admin
209:was particularly odd.
1272:WP:NPOV#Undue weight
1095:— The article fails
1371:because it's useful
1140:common medal tables
1164:Sports Illustrated
1105:The first citation
1032:Delete and Comment
546:out the window. --
44:The result was
1466:
1382:
1353:Benjamin Boukpeti
1206:
1191:Los Angeles Times
988:Neut Nuttinbutter
976:Los Angeles Times
902:Neut Nuttinbutter
861:
847:
542:, so that throws
361:Neut Nuttinbutter
349:
245:Neut Nuttinbutter
217:Los Angeles Times
193:Neut Nuttinbutter
134:. Also violates
132:Original research
59:
1586:
1573:
1471:
1464:
1458:
1457:" as you said. —
1402:main medal table
1387:
1380:
1374:
1211:
1204:
1198:
872:
856:
848:
838:
797:Prince of Canada
733:BountyHunter2008
567:WP:SELFPUBLISHED
536:WP:SELFPUBLISHED
350:
348:
344:
270:
207:WP:SELFPUBLISHED
122:
116:
98:
58:
56:
49:
34:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1576:deletion review
1569:
1473:
1469:
1460:
1419:WP:Undue weight
1389:
1385:
1376:
1213:
1209:
1200:
1187:The last source
870:
854:
496:reliable source
347:
342:
340:per precedent.
313:WP:undue weight
268:
118:
89:
73:
70:
52:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1592:
1590:
1581:
1580:
1563:
1561:
1560:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1467:
1451:has no subject
1439:
1383:
1367:
1292:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1207:
1197:
1194:
1185:
1180:One source is
1178:
1177:
1167:
1148:
1147:
1133:
1123:
1117:
1108:
1103:
1101:
1100:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1070:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1029:
1012:
1000:
999:
998:
947:
929:
928:
913:
912:
895:
878:
862:
836:
819:
802:
790:
773:
743:
726:
708:
689:
688:
687:
655:
638:
637:
636:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
525:
507:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
373:
372:
371:
335:
334:
333:
277:
257:
256:
255:
222:
219:for some time,
203:
169:
168:
163:
158:
129:
128:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1591:
1579:
1577:
1572:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1528:
1524:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1481:Eynar Oxartum
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1465:
1463:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1447:WP:Notability
1444:
1440:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1405:Eynar Oxartum
1403:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1388:
1381:
1379:
1372:
1368:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1357:Eynar Oxartum
1354:
1350:
1346:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:Strongly Keep
1316:
1315:
1314:
1311:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1212:
1205:
1203:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1175:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1165:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1121:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:Eynar Oxartum
1016:
1013:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
970:
969:
968:
965:
964:
961:
960:
955:
951:
950:Strong delete
948:
946:
942:
938:
934:
931:
930:
927:
923:
919:
915:
914:
911:
907:
903:
899:
896:
894:
890:
886:
882:
879:
877:
874:
873:
866:
863:
860:
857:
852:
845:
841:
837:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
818:
814:
810:
806:
803:
801:
798:
794:
791:
789:
785:
781:
777:
774:
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
751:
747:
744:
742:
738:
734:
730:
727:
725:
721:
717:
712:
709:
707:
704:
700:
697:
693:
690:
686:
682:
678:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
659:
656:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
635:
631:
627:
624:per Andrwsc.
623:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
600:
597:
596:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
532:Bill Mitchell
529:
526:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
470:
467:
464:
461:
458:
455:
445:
442:
437:
434:
433:
432:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:
404:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
381:
377:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
356:
355:
354:
351:
345:
339:
336:
332:
328:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
296:
293:
290:
286:
281:
278:
276:
273:
271:
265:
261:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
220:
218:
211:
208:
204:
202:
198:
194:
189:
186:
185:
184:
183:
182:
181:
177:
173:
167:
164:
162:
159:
157:
154:
153:
152:
149:
147:
146:
141:
137:
133:
126:
121:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
57:
55:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1570:
1567:
1562:
1545:
1519:
1508:
1488:
1485:IT IS USEFUL
1462:Do U(knome)?
1461:
1454:
1450:
1442:
1429:
1396:
1378:Do U(knome)?
1377:
1348:
1344:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1294:
1282:
1245:
1241:
1202:Do U(knome)?
1201:
1190:
1179:
1174:The Daily NK
1173:
1162:
1149:
1143:
1129:
1102:
1092:
1078:59.149.32.77
1069:
1040:59.149.32.77
1035:
1031:
1014:
1002:
975:
971:
963:
958:
949:
932:
897:
880:
868:
864:
839:
821:
804:
792:
775:
745:
728:
710:
691:
657:
640:
621:
603:
598:
561:
539:
527:
491:
452:
435:
406:
389:
384:
379:
375:
337:
323:
304:
291:
279:
259:
224:
216:
187:
170:
150:
143:
130:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1182:out of date
959:OhanaUnited
343:Pie is good
1550:SYSS Mouse
1349:An example
1303:Basement12
696:Basement12
645:Nirvana888
548:Madchester
515:Madchester
423:Madchester
188:Questions:
172:Madchester
54:Sandstein
1495:Wookie919
1332:Wookie919
1322:. I said
1258:Wookie919
1250:Sad mouse
1225:Sad mouse
1055:Sad mouse
974:Does the
972:Question:
885:Sad mouse
677:Sad mouse
576:Sad mouse
528:Comment.'
502:, if not
472:Sad mouse
394:Sad mouse
1523:contribs
1433:contribs
1286:contribs
1170:And this
1159:This one
1136:This one
1126:This one
956:policy.
937:Reinoutr
780:AndrewRT
763:AndrewRT
662:Geologik
562:Comment'
492:Comment.
436:Comment.
407:Comment.
327:contribs
295:contribs
269:Reywas92
145:LA Times
125:View log
1513:Andrwsc
1423:Andrwsc
1397:insight
1345:Comment
1295:Comment
1276:Andrwsc
1254:WP:NPOV
1007:Bart133
881:Comment
851:the wub
826:Ngckmax
716:Huaiwei
714:list.--
620:Affirm
571:WP:NPOV
544:WP:NPOV
534:. Per
504:WP:NPOV
411:WP:NPOV
317:Andrwsc
303:Affirm
285:Andrwsc
231:and/or
136:WP:NPOV
92:protect
87:history
1546:delete
1193:blog.
1093:Delete
865:Delete
822:Delete
809:Phizzy
805:Delete
793:Delete
729:Delete
692:Delete
658:Delete
641:Delete
622:Delete
604:Merged
599:Delete
511:WP:SYN
500:WP:NOR
419:WP:NOR
417:, and
358:WP:CCC
338:Delete
305:delete
280:Delete
260:Delete
237:WP:CCC
120:delete
96:delete
46:delete
1470:or no
1441:The "
1386:or no
1328:merge
1301:. —
1246:merge
1210:or no
1172:from
1161:from
984:WP:RS
918:Metao
750:WP:RS
711:Merge
626:Metao
608:Metao
415:WP:RS
380:merge
315:. —
241:WP:OI
227:into
140:WP:RS
123:) – (
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
1554:talk
1517:talk
1499:talk
1427:talk
1409:talk
1361:talk
1336:talk
1324:Keep
1280:talk
1262:talk
1242:Keep
1229:talk
1120:This
1114:This
1082:talk
1059:talk
1044:talk
1023:talk
1015:Keep
1003:Keep
992:talk
982:and
980:WP:V
941:talk
933:Keep
922:talk
906:talk
889:talk
855:"?!"
840:Note
830:talk
813:talk
784:Talk
776:Note
767:Talk
759:NPOV
755:here
746:Keep
737:talk
720:talk
681:talk
666:talk
649:talk
630:talk
612:talk
580:talk
552:talk
519:talk
476:talk
427:talk
398:talk
376:Keep
365:talk
321:talk
289:talk
249:talk
239:and
197:talk
176:talk
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
1326:or
1244:or
1152:GDP
849:--
846:.
385:was
1556:)
1525:)
1501:)
1487::
1435:)
1411:)
1363:)
1351::
1338:)
1310:C)
1306:(T
1288:)
1264:)
1231:)
1084:)
1061:)
1046:)
1025:)
994:)
986:?
954:OR
943:)
924:)
908:)
891:)
832:)
815:)
786:)
769:)
739:)
722:)
703:C)
699:(T
683:)
668:)
651:)
632:)
614:)
582:)
554:)
521:)
478:)
429:)
413:,
400:)
367:)
329:)
297:)
251:)
199:)
178:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
1552:(
1520:·
1515:(
1497:(
1430:·
1425:(
1407:(
1359:(
1334:(
1308:.
1283:·
1278:(
1260:(
1227:(
1184:.
1132:"
1080:(
1057:(
1042:(
1021:(
990:(
939:(
920:(
904:(
887:(
828:(
811:(
782:(
765:(
735:(
718:(
701:.
679:(
664:(
647:(
628:(
610:(
578:(
560:'
550:(
517:(
474:(
425:(
396:(
392:.
363:(
324:·
319:(
292:·
287:(
247:(
195:(
174:(
127:)
117:(
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.