750:? They are all treated with loving concern for detail, yet deal with fantastical subjects. If those articles have a right to exist here, so that our users may learn from them (as I believe they do), why not also an article about a widely released new film examining one of the most important events of the past few years, and featuring as its main characters the widows of men lost in that event? Is fantasy more significant than fiction, or is it simply a question of whether consumers bought more of one and fewer of another? As with some other editors here, I believe the "selective deletionist" agenda is more insidious and aggressive. Let's try to respect one another's contributions here.
933:, a Swedish movie. Someone pointed out that it was nominated for two academy awards. But when I mentioned it to my Swedish relatives they thought it was rather insignificant or uninteresting. Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie myself. What's my point about all this? Here is a fictional movie, that came out long before wikipedia was around--indeed, the internet, as such, only had 5000 computers on it at the time. So documenting it is documenting a piece of film arcana. On the other hand, we have here under consideration a serious movie about a deadly serious subject having extensive interviews with people
973:
family members to the 9/11 Commission, once that committee was finally organized, over the objections of the Bush administration. Probably a lot of the comments implying that the film is akin to some of the other 9/11 conspiracy films come from people who haven't seen it. A glance at the strongly political userboxes of the editor who put this page up for deletion suggests there may be other overarching motivations for his actions (whether conscious or subconscious) than lack of "notability" of this film.
682:: that is why it is called a "stub." There are a lot of such articles throughout Knowledge, and we don't delete them all for the reason that they are short. A blow-by-blow description of the film's contents, how it was made, etc. can of course be added but that takes time, with the contribution of various editors (which could include you). But it seems that, at least so far, your edits consist solely of attempting to remove articles written by other editors, and not to create any new ones of your own.
410:- A useful stub of what might be a better article concerning a reasonably notable film. This deletion request seems driven by political rather than academic motives, and hence should be scrutinized carefully. I don't agree with the film's conclusions, but I wanted to know more about it, particularly as related to other 9/11 conspiracy theory propoganda. Or am I suspicious for even asking about 9/11 conspiracy theorists? --
720:; seems more notable than many things on wikipedia, and appears to have been suggested for deletion for reasons of POV better discussed on the article than on an AfD page. Comments lumping together various films and books as part of "9/11 cruft" are particularly suspicious -- let's stick to issues of notability rather than making this yet another politicized AfD debate. Remember, don't disrupt Knowledge to make a
1183:. "Don't see" is the key phrase here, as it seems you haven't seen the film before voting here. As mentioned above, there are no conspiracies discussed in the film; it is a straight discussion of facts regarding the 9/11 timeline and investigation, and the families' reactions. So what you and many editors say above is really quite inaccurate, and reflects poorly on you in that you would vote without
937:... and we're having a discussion about deleting coverage of this topic. Have folks even seen what the Jersey Widows and other family members have to say? Go watch the movie and tell me it's not for real what these people feel and perceive. I think most of the people on this page are either arrogant or heartless. I'm beginning to feel like assuming good faith of these other editors is a sick joke.
959:
irrelevant to the discussion at hand: the question is whether the movie in question has enough significant independent coverage to justify an encyclopedic article and allow one to be written. As far as I can see, this movie passes the low threshold required, so I've voted keep - this despite loathing conspiracy theories. Other disagree. Assume good faith, and display it.
337:. Note also that it's #1,224 on Amazon's DVD rank. (For comparison purposes, Criteron Collection's M is #3,814, Rikki Tikki Tavi/Yankee Doodle Cricket is #1,389 and Bakshi's The Lord of the Rings is #18,969, all of which are clearly notable.) That, and especially the New York Times mention, make it a minor but notable film.--
551:. Also, don't blame me if other users don't bother to actually research the topic and simply use "per nom" as an explanation for deletion (which is personally a pet peeve for me too). Though it's true I didn't lie , I'm also not perfect (no one is) so I'm still vulnerable to make mistakes. Either way, be sure to be a bit
1384:
this film is very well produced and dives headfirst into facts, accounts, and news stories about the war on terror and 9/11. its not a conspiracy movie but a documentary which researches facts not psudoscience. if loose change which is a complete conspiracy theory movie can be kept on here i dont see
1284:
more notability than this film and the Jersey Girls. And I don't know what you're implying with the "talking out of the other side of their mouths" comment, but I didn't vote to delete because of my opinion of the films content (though I do have one), I voted to delete because I think the film is not
136:
There's quite a difference and I believe 341,000 proves notability. Whether you believe the film to be "cruft" or not, it is wrong to remove all mention of it from
Knowledge, for whatever stated or unstated reason. We are here to serve our users. If you view the film and object to its contents for
495:
On a side note, I want to shake a finger at all the keeps that have not done any research into this beyond looking at the AFD and voting per what ever was said. I was guilty of this until I actually looked up the articles and found user, Tree Biting
Conspiracy, lying about the sources. AfD is about
1319:
Look, I'm not even going to discuss the pokemon, it's a non-sequitur argument. Just because those things are not notable doesn't mean this is. This film isn't even listed on IMDb, for God's sake. Just because the Jersey Girls are notable doesn't make everything tied to their wagon notable as well.
972:
Comment: I don't think the film represents a conspiracy theory. It sets out a timeline and focuses primarily on the government's failure to investigate promptly and fully as in previous disasters of a similar magnitude, and particularly on the failure to answer the questions developed and posed by
958:
is utterly irrelevant - the movie has gained substantial coverage, been nominated for or awarded many prizes, launched the career of a major director, and is clearly significant (and pretty good, by the way). Equally, your strong feelings on viewing the movie "9/11: Press for Truth" are utterly
847:
Significant topic, mentioned in NY Times article, extremely high Amazon sales rank. Note some deletion votes appear to be disagreements with the politics rathern than the encyclopedic quality or notability. Crystal ball gazing and predicting that sales will decrease soon is not a valid basis for
476:
After reviewing the sources, I have found that the article does NOT pass notability requirements. The NYT mention is NOT an article that focuses on, and only on the movie (which is required. The article must be a full-length featured article about the subject only). It is only a mentioned as a
137:
factual reasons, that could be treated in the article or "discussion" page. But simply attempting to delete articles other editors begin for such reasons (especially flawed reasoning such as the wildly inaccurate claim there are only 344 hits) is just wrong, and against what we stand for here.
422:
no opinion, but I added an
Importance tag to the article because the article makes no case why this film has any relevence, notability, or importance. TBC basically did all the legwork already so interested parties just need to include the sources he's provided in the article (and go ahead and
1337:
The article is NPOV, so arguing that it's an ad really doesn't help your case. It'd be nice if more of the arguments against the film treated it the same as a documentary about the Pikary fish of east
Surinam, and stopped calling it 9/11 cruft and just "advertizing for the 9/11 truth
1214:
I didn't vote delete because it is a conspiracy video. I deleted it because it is not notable. And yes, it's less notable than those things you point out, which means it's really, really not notable. This seems like just more promotion of 9/11 truth movement cruft we've been seeing
1100:. The fact that the Jersey girls are in it and speak their latest thoughts is central to the issue of 9/11/01 - the people who got the investigation to happen and all and now are saying what they thought about it . . . no wonder so many don't want to allow it on here.
631:: Everything is transitory. Sic transit gloria mundi. But current figures show that it is currently popular, which means it will have some interest in history. As you say, all DVD sales figures eventually drop; should we use that to remove all popular movies?--
105:. If the tag had been placed in the proper manner (including a link to discussion explaining why the editor sought to delete the article), it would not have been removed. The above profanity in reference to the present editor is objected to strenuously.
477:
small part of related 9/11 events happening on or around 9/11/06. Rotten
Tomatoes is not used as a 'reliable source'. Amazon is used to verify the movie was made though, as is the AOL movies listing but neither provide a reason the movie is notable.
435:
One of the best 9/11 movies I have ever seen. Furthermore, this is a new movie. If this were to disappear into the fog of time then I could see some argument for deleting it, but why throw out the baby with the bathwater? This movie features the
489:
is not a reputable website (and this is just a press release), and hence is also voided as a reliable source. Nothing notable about this and does not have multiple, independent, third-party, reliable, full-length featured articles about the
183:: unique Google hits are only counted on the first 1,000 Google hits, so 344 unique Google hits does not mean that there are only 344 different sites mentioning this. Knowledge has 416,000,000 Google hits (!), but only 384 unique Google hits
291:: The snoop article is just a press release and the ny times just make a trivial, passing mention. The two movie reviews seem to come from non notable sites and being included in a database far from warrants inclusion on wikipedia--
578:. I agree with TBC; this comment is rather uncivil. You provided no evidence that TBC was lying about anything, and your differing analysis of his sources was a difference in opinion, and should have been stated like that.--
153:
hits off of google. Please don't speak for other
Knowledge authors or make statements as an authority on 'what wikipedia stands for'. After we remove blogs, forums, wikipedia, and journals it only shows 284 unique
244:
1049:
Google returns 321,000 hits, the movie on dvd was included with one of Polish country-wide weekly magazines. It's a real documentary-type movie (not homemade CT movie). Yet, article needs expanding. --
1255:. That's my non-political opinion. My political opinion is that people who see this as "9/11 cruft" could well be talking out of the other side of their mouths soon, because conservative columnist
349:- there's a load of rubbish placed on WP by advocates of the "9/11 Truth Marketing Opportunity" - sorry, "Truth Movement" - but this doesn't appear to be it. Notability guidelines seem satisfied.
309:. And you have to give the article credit - at least it doesn't prattle on and on about every minor detail (a common technique used to misdirect attention from the unimportance of the subject).
1310:
interviews with the 9/11 family members who were "instrumental in the creation of the 9/11 Commission." I don't think much more needs to be said (or can be said, for that matter) about this.
155:
89:-violating manner, but to the main point: It's more of the latest rash of 9/11 "Truth Movement" cruft. The article doesn't assert any notability, mainly because it has none. Only 344 ghits
452:. It is based entirely on excerpted press stories so is based firmly in fact. Facts, I recall, are what wikipedia is about, not delete trolling, which I see a lot of around here.
615:: Sales figures are transitory. When the numbers collapse in a few weeks, as all DVD sales figures eventually do, will you then nominate this article for deletion yourself? --
759:
Nope, I never heard of those articles or topics, but I agree with you (clearly). I had in mind topics far less notable than this one that add little to
Knowledge like
1259:
has said that the administration plans to trot out their own "9/11 widows" to drum up support for completing the removal of the Bill of Rights from the
Constitution.
760:
1306:
of your above statement that you believe a "large bipedal tropical plant"-shaped children's cartoon character to be more notable than a documentary film featuring
526:
make a movie more notable than if it was some sort of home movie made by a couple of teenagers after school. Also, Slant
Magazine and Hub Weekly, are considered
916:
597:
270:
90:
1251:", I see no reason not to have separate articles on the Jersey Girls and this film. Knowledge is full of cross references to trivial information, or so sez
929:: In discussion about another 9/11-as-inside-job movie that was successfully ground down to zero by the deletion police, I mentioned the comparison to
186:. Let's delete Knowledge? I have no opinion on this article, but deletion because of the low number of Unique Google Hits is in this case a bad idea.
485:
are not a print magazines but rather are blogs...which removes them as a reliable sources (blogs are not normally allowed, per wikipedia policy).
950:
You seem to be confusing your personal feelings with a method of deciding on verifiability and notability (possibly along the lines of the
449:
1372:
because it will be useful information to many readers on both sides of any 9/11 debate and features significant figures in that debate.
1401:
1196:
743:
21:
530:, and not blogs. Next time, I suggest that you please do not accuse other users of lying before carefully reading their comments.--
1327:
1292:
1222:
1166:
873:
561:
536:
278:
252:
157:. Only reason I say keep is because of the NYT article. If that wasn't around, I would say to nuke the article without pity. --
17:
599:
Yet more evidence of notability, and yet more reason why there really isn't any reason to "hide" information from our users.
996:
1187:
that what you say is correct. When you say it's not "any more notable," does that mean, then, that this documentary is
556:
531:
334:
306:
273:
247:
1159:. I don't see this being any more notable than the various other conspiracy videos that have been deleted recently.--
1412:
1376:
1364:
1342:
1332:
1314:
1297:
1263:
1227:
1207:
1171:
1141:
1132:
1116:
1104:
1084:
1072:
1053:
1041:
1029:
1012:
1000:
977:
963:
941:
921:
907:
895:
881:
852:
839:
825:
804:
795:
767:
754:
728:
712:
700:
686:
671:
653:
635:
619:
603:
582:
566:
541:
502:
468:
456:
427:
414:
392:
380:
365:
353:
341:
325:
313:
295:
283:
257:
190:
163:
141:
121:
109:
96:
64:
876:
445:
184:
1428:
992:
40:
133:
1427:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1025:
378:
1397:
1137:
Comment: Having "9/11" and "Truth" in the title does not necessarily make it '9/11 truth movement cruft'.
870:
822:
792:
322:
1128:. Notability seems borderline, probably does not merit a separate article, but deletion is uncalled for.
1021:
70:
1393:
1389:
1324:
1289:
1219:
1163:
865:
764:
725:
235:
57:
401:
229:
310:
1361:
1320:
This is just more of the same advertizing for the 9/11 truth movement that has popped up lately.--
362:
374:
61:
53:
662:
219:
1097:
1081:
1038:
951:
938:
818:
788:
453:
33:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
215:
955:
930:
226:
510:
Lying about sources? First of all, false accusations are not civil, and are a violation of
1339:
1321:
1286:
1256:
1216:
1160:
1138:
1129:
721:
709:
632:
579:
441:
338:
211:
1311:
1307:
1260:
1252:
1239:
It's a legitimate article on a legitimate subject. It wouldn't kill me if merged with
1204:
1200:
1113:
1067:
974:
918:
904:
751:
747:
683:
600:
424:
411:
241:
223:
207:
138:
106:
86:
1409:
1373:
1050:
1009:
891:
836:
801:
668:
552:
511:
465:
389:
292:
79:
1240:
1156:
1125:
861:
810:
784:
497:
437:
266:
238:
158:
222:
movie databases. It has also been reviewed by some notable media sources such as
1277:
1273:
1248:
1244:
1093:
960:
849:
350:
1080:
Notability is not the same as my liking it. I don't like it, but it's notable.
232:
697:
650:
616:
496:
researching the topic and basing your own keep/delete on your own research. --
118:
93:
134:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%229%2F11+press+for+truth%22
1285:
notable. I'm believe most of my fellow delete voters had the same reasons.--
1062:
518:
state that the article entirely focused on the movie, I only stated that it
187:
1303:
1192:
1101:
739:
92:, almost all of which are sales pitches, obscure reviews or blogrolling.
149:
I have ever seen. Badagnani, a Ghit is google hits and it only has 344
269:
and is, as
Badagnani mentioned below, ranked #765 in Amazon.com sales.
860:
this documentary isn't even listed on IMDB. Mention of this video in
522:
the movie. Having a profile on Rotten Tomatoes, AOL Movies, or Amazon
738:: when you say "more notable than," were you perhaps referring to
388:
More conspiracy cruft. Barely any coverage by reliable sources. --
132:
I am not sure what a "ghit" is, but the film draws 341,000 hits.
444:. The movie documents their story. It also has interviews with
1421:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
915:: as of 15 September 2006: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #655 in DVD.
596:: as of 14 September 2006: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #765 in DVD.
400:. If it was expanded, it could turn into a resonable article. +
555:
next time before making allegations such as those above. :) --
423:
boldly remove the tag after the sources have been included).--
246:(note that the New York Times article requires subscribing).--
809:
No, I meant there's nothing to merge here, but a redirect to
1203:? That wasn't answered above. Thank you for your input.
954:?) Whether you and your Swedish great-uncle have heard of
661:
very little information, not enough to justify keeping it.
373:
per TBC, especially based on the New York Times article. -
321:
per nom. Completely non-notable conspiracy cruft film.
361:
no need to advertise for Jersey girls seeking wealth.--
450:
Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
440:who were on the family steering committee for the
1360:- Per nomination and per Aud, Tom Harrison, etc.
1431:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1008:. I've seen it. Its a real film. It is notable.
761:Every time you kill a kitten... God masturbates
1385:why 9/11: Path to Truth should ever be asd --
835:Minor to zero significance here. Layering.--
667:User's 10th extant edit, all but one to AfD.
8:
117:: Above comment is by creator of article. --
991:. Delete per nom and others; weak per TBC.
514:. As for the New York Times article, I did
1092:- Notable film and agree with comments by
817:, but a merge seems to be unnecessary. â
787:. Nothing to see here. Move along. â
234:as well as mentioned in articles in the
1302:I think Ortolan88 was pointing out the
696:Not notable and soon to be forgotten.--
813:is plausible. I'd accept a straight
7:
265:. The movie also seems to star the
28:
1197:Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell)
744:Laughing Man (Ghost in the Shell)
800:Do you mean merge and redirect?
1061:per tree biting conspiracy. --
206:. The movie is included in the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1413:00:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
1377:01:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
1365:21:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1343:08:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
1333:20:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1315:19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1298:19:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1264:18:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1228:04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1208:04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1172:03:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1142:14:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
1133:23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1117:22:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1105:20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1085:19:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1073:18:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1054:17:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1042:13:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1030:10:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1013:09:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
1001:09:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
978:11:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
964:09:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
942:08:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
922:06:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
908:04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
896:03:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
882:02:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
853:23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
840:23:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
826:03:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
805:00:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
796:23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
768:01:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
755:23:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
729:23:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
713:21:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
701:21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
687:21:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
672:21:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
665:21:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
654:20:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
636:04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
620:20:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
604:20:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
583:04:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
567:20:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
542:20:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
503:19:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
469:19:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
457:16:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
428:16:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
415:16:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
393:12:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
381:10:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
366:07:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
354:06:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
342:04:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
326:04:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
314:03:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
296:13:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
284:20:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
258:03:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
191:09:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
164:05:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
142:02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
122:17:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
110:02:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
97:02:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
85:tag removed in a particularly
65:04:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
935:whose relatives died on 9/11
1247:has a separate article on '
1448:
1408:User's 16th extant edit.
1112:per the above comments.
1037:not notable; promotional
708:Per l'argument de MONGO.
1424:Please do not modify it.
36:Please do not modify it.
1010:Self-Described SeabhcĂĄn
448:, one of the premier
71:9/11: Press for Truth
464:per New York Times.
1151:, or if necessary,
649:per Aaron, Morton.
1415:
1406:
1392:comment added by
1330:
1295:
1225:
1169:
1028:
999:
952:Chewbacca Defence
880:
848:voting to delete.
674:
323:Morton devonshire
1439:
1426:
1407:
1405:
1386:
1328:
1293:
1223:
1167:
1070:
1065:
1024:
995:
956:My Life as a Dog
931:My Life as a Dog
903:per nomination.
894:
868:
666:
564:
539:
500:
433:Keep, absolutely
281:
255:
161:
84:
78:
38:
1447:
1446:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1429:deletion review
1422:
1387:
1272:Come on. Both "
1257:Andrew Sullivan
1068:
1063:
890:
562:
537:
528:review websites
498:
442:9/11 Commission
279:
253:
208:Rotten Tomatoes
159:
82:
76:
74:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1445:
1443:
1434:
1433:
1417:
1416:
1379:
1367:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1308:primary source
1304:Ludicolousness
1267:
1266:
1253:Comic Book Guy
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1211:
1210:
1201:Vala Mal Doran
1175:
1174:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1119:
1107:
1087:
1075:
1056:
1044:
1032:
1022:badlydrawnjeff
1015:
1003:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
967:
966:
945:
944:
924:
910:
898:
884:
855:
842:
830:
829:
828:
807:
773:
772:
771:
770:
748:Vala Mal Doran
732:
731:
715:
703:
690:
689:
676:
675:
656:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
623:
622:
607:
606:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
572:
571:
570:
569:
492:
491:
479:Slant Magazine
471:
459:
430:
417:
405:
395:
383:
368:
356:
344:
328:
316:
311:My Alt Account
300:
299:
298:
286:
242:New York Times
230:The Hub Weekly
224:Slant Magazine
220:New York Times
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
194:
193:
171:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
127:
126:
125:
124:
73:
68:
46:
45:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1444:
1432:
1430:
1425:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1411:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1383:
1380:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1344:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1325:
1323:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1296:
1290:
1288:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1235:
1234:
1229:
1226:
1220:
1218:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1191:notable than
1190:
1186:
1182:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1071:
1066:
1060:
1057:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1020:per above. --
1019:
1016:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
987:
986:
979:
976:
971:
970:
969:
968:
965:
962:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
946:
943:
940:
936:
932:
928:
925:
923:
920:
917:
914:
911:
909:
906:
902:
899:
897:
893:
888:
885:
883:
878:
875:
872:
867:
863:
859:
856:
854:
851:
846:
843:
841:
838:
834:
831:
827:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
806:
803:
799:
798:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
775:
774:
769:
766:
762:
758:
757:
756:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
734:
733:
730:
727:
723:
719:
716:
714:
711:
707:
704:
702:
699:
695:
692:
691:
688:
685:
681:
678:
677:
673:
670:
664:
660:
657:
655:
652:
648:
645:
644:
637:
634:
630:
627:
626:
625:
624:
621:
618:
614:
611:
610:
609:
608:
605:
602:
598:
595:
592:
591:
584:
581:
577:
574:
573:
568:
565:
560:
559:
554:
550:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
540:
535:
534:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
506:
505:
504:
501:
494:
493:
488:
484:
480:
475:
472:
470:
467:
463:
460:
458:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
434:
431:
429:
426:
421:
418:
416:
413:
409:
406:
403:
399:
396:
394:
391:
387:
386:Strong Delete
384:
382:
379:
376:
372:
369:
367:
364:
360:
357:
355:
352:
348:
345:
343:
340:
336:
332:
329:
327:
324:
320:
317:
315:
312:
308:
304:
301:
297:
294:
290:
287:
285:
282:
277:
276:
271:
268:
264:
261:
260:
259:
256:
251:
250:
245:
243:
239:
237:
233:
231:
227:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
201:
192:
189:
185:
182:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
172:
165:
162:
156:
152:
148:
145:
144:
143:
140:
135:
131:
130:
129:
128:
123:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
108:
104:
101:
100:
99:
98:
95:
91:
88:
81:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
60:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
31:
30:
23:
19:
1423:
1420:
1394:69.115.18.23
1388:â Preceding
1381:
1369:
1357:
1338:movement".--
1281:
1241:Jersey Girls
1236:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1157:Jersey Girls
1152:
1148:
1126:Jersey Girls
1121:
1109:
1098:Kaimiddleton
1089:
1077:
1058:
1046:
1039:Tom Harrison
1034:
1017:
1005:
988:
939:Kaimiddleton
934:
926:
912:
900:
889:per above. â
886:
864:suffices. --
862:Jersey Girls
857:
844:
832:
819:Arthur Rubin
814:
811:Jersey girls
789:Arthur Rubin
785:Jersey girls
780:
776:
735:
717:
705:
693:
679:
658:
646:
628:
612:
593:
575:
557:
548:
532:
527:
523:
519:
515:
507:
486:
482:
478:
473:
461:
454:Kaimiddleton
446:Paul Thomson
438:Jersey girls
432:
419:
407:
397:
385:
370:
358:
346:
330:
318:
302:
288:
274:
267:Jersey Girls
262:
248:
203:
180:
150:
147:Weakest Keep
146:
114:
102:
75:
56:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
35:
32:
1382:Strong Keep
1278:Ray Charles
1274:Mess Around
1249:Mess Around
1245:Ray Charles
1215:recently.--
1059:Strong Keep
989:Weak Delete
877:as tagcloud
371:Strong keep
103:Strong keep
1340:Prosfilaes
1322:CĂșchullain
1287:CĂșchullain
1217:CĂșchullain
1161:CĂșchullain
1139:Peter Grey
1130:Peter Grey
710:Lou Sander
633:Prosfilaes
580:Prosfilaes
483:Hub Weekly
339:Prosfilaes
1312:Badagnani
1261:Ortolan88
1243:, but if
1205:Badagnani
1185:verifying
1114:RFerreira
975:Badagnani
919:Badagnani
905:Crockspot
752:Badagnani
684:Badagnani
601:Badagnani
520:mentioned
425:Isotope23
412:Nemonoman
398:Weak Keep
303:Weak keep
216:Moviefone
204:Weak keep
139:Badagnani
107:Badagnani
1410:Tyrenius
1402:contribs
1390:unsigned
1374:Tyrenius
1193:Ludicolo
1051:SalvNaut
892:Khoikhoi
874:contribs
837:Scribner
815:redirect
802:Tyrenius
781:redirect
740:Ludicolo
669:Tyrenius
466:Gamaliel
390:Peephole
293:Peephole
240:and the
20: |
1181:Comment
927:Comment
913:Comment
736:Comment
680:Comment
629:Comment
613:Comment
594:Comment
576:Comment
563:TaLk?!?
549:Comment
538:TaLk?!?
508:Comment
420:Comment
363:Tbeatty
289:Comment
280:TaLk?!?
263:Comment
254:TaLk?!?
181:Comment
87:WP:DICK
54:Mailer
1358:Delete
1276:" and
1149:Delete
1094:Edison
1035:Delete
997:(talk)
961:Vizjim
901:Delete
887:Delete
858:Delete
850:Edison
833:Delete
823:(talk)
793:(talk)
777:Delete
765:csloat
726:csloat
706:Delete
694:Delete
659:Delete
651:Jayjg
647:Delete
512:WP:CIV
474:Delete
359:Delete
351:Vizjim
333:- per
319:Delete
305:- per
228:, and
212:Amazon
151:unique
1362:Dwain
1280:have
1237:Keep:
1199:, or
1153:merge
1124:with
1122:Merge
746:, or
722:point
698:MONGO
663:Dekar
617:Aaron
553:civil
499:Brian
490:film.
487:Scoop
236:Scoop
160:Brian
119:Aaron
94:Aaron
62:iablo
16:<
1398:talk
1370:Keep
1282:much
1189:less
1110:Keep
1096:and
1090:Keep
1078:Keep
1047:Keep
1026:talk
1018:Keep
1006:Keep
871:talk
866:Aude
845:Keep
779:and
718:Keep
524:does
481:and
462:Keep
408:Keep
347:Keep
331:Keep
218:and
188:Fram
154:hits
115:Note
80:PROD
52:. -
1155:to
1102:bov
1082:GdB
993:CWC
821:|
791:|
783:to
763:.--
724:.--
558:TBC
533:TBC
516:not
402:Fin
375:Mgm
335:TBC
307:TBC
275:TBC
249:TBC
1404:)
1400:âą
1195:,
1069:ah
1064:he
742:,
272:--
214:,
210:,
83:}}
77:{{
1396:(
1329:c
1326:/
1294:c
1291:/
1224:c
1221:/
1168:c
1165:/
879:)
869:(
404:-
377:|
58:D
22:9
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.