376:
seat laughing. G4S's failure to provide enough guards was a huge issue. It generated huge amounts of public debate, massive amounts of media coverage, and statements from all sorts of high offices, which even generated its own side controversy over some less than well thought out comments on it from a certain US Presidential candidate. It was even debated in
Parliament. And that's before we mention the real world consequences for the company itself, the world's largest private security provider (which included a trip by the CEO to said Parliament, for a very public humiliation). Actually I probably will have to mention them - the stock crashed and they gave up bidding rights on some future global events. Anyone who has done any research on the subject, and yet can still claim that this event was trivial, is a liar quite frankly. Don't be fooled by the section's size, that's a mere product of Knowledge's complete lack of any editors who are able to remain here long enough to put some quality work in, in the face of having to deal with editors like, well, you can see if you look at the talk page. All I'll say is I'm surprised it hasn't been removed yet for being a BLP violation against the company's CEO. The G4S debacle was arguably the biggest controversy of the games, or is at least tied for the title with the seats issue and the perennial brand protection/sponsor broohaahaa. I will not vote either way because that would give unwarranted legitimacy to this clearly unresearched proposal, but I nonetheless condemn it.
1214:
ordinary people either. It strikes me that the dictionary definition is getting very little air time in this whole debate, and the many people here do infact want to make up their own definition for
Knowledge, judging by all this talk of inclusion criteria. Nothing wrong with that of course, particularly when it's objective (such as only listing footbally players with 100 appearances), but when it's based on subjectivity, it can only end in conflict and an article that many people won't think is a quality piece of work. I would humbly suggest that expecting a newspaper to use the term, would be very objective inclusion standard. Although that of course doesn't take into account national biases, what the American press might call controversial, the Chinese press might not, and vice versa.
1341:
want something to be a controversy they'll find a source for it somewhere given the ammount of media attention the
Olympics get and that each nation will have news sources that cry foul over the slightest thing which doesn't go their countries way. There doesn't appear to be any defined requirement for inclusion, and some controversies (e.g. McDonalds sponsership, Hotel prices) seem to occur every Olympics, so perhaps would be better off in an article about long-term controversies anyway.
198:. This article is full of trivia, such as the security company not getting enough security guards, a grandmother getting in trouble for trademark infringement, and Beijing making a stink because a London neighbourhood association put on a flag display that included the flag of the Chinese government. A few of these bits likely deserve to be mentioned in the article on the Games or in sub-articles; e.g., the bottle-thrower at an athletics event might get mentioned in the article on
541:- In a year most of the information provided in this article will be of little or no use historically. The 2012 Summer Olympics is not yet even over there is no way this article is fair, balanced or neutral. Knowledge is not a end all of everything. It is not for news but an encyclopedia as noted above. There is some good information in this article and in time the more accurate perspective will filter out the news media BS and propaganda. Then the article should be re-written.
1699:. Some of the items are trivia for deletion. Most of the controversies should be sections of other articles: those about the events, or the sports, or the security, or whatever. But this article should still exist as a list of them with summaries and crosslinks. Concerns about framing or undue emphasis are spurious: it's a legitimate cross-section of a very varied subject, and the framing is overt (in the article's name) not insidious or weaselly.
1117:. Deleting the page would probably be less work than managing that madhouse and going through the likely merry-go-round of discussion of what should be included, but that does not mean that deleting the page is the correct action. Semi-protecting the article until the population of upset fans dwindles may help expedite the pruning required for this article to be improved.
232:. Most of the issues listed are not "trivia" but legitimate controversies and concerns which received significant media attention. Nyttend, if you have a concern with the content of the article, why haven't you participated in its talk page discussions? If you have, my apologies for not noticing or responding to your concerns.
495:
a vote on whether to delete or keep, and whoever says keep needs to have a good reason, such as notability, and prove that. While the argument that X exists so Y should isn't a good one, and should be avoided, I mentioned it because they're both on the same topic and seem to be a recurring series every 4 years. --
564:. If an issue about this event is significant then it should be in the main article. If the main article is too full then topics should be split off in a neutral way. So, for example, the G4S matter is best covered in a neutral article about security arrangements for these games and we actually have one —
1360:, from a member of the general community, not an active participant of the Wiki. I personally don't like trawling through bullshit journalism to find information; it's nice to see a (relatively) reliable, unbiased, comprehensive collection of the controversies. Enough of the bull, it's a single page.
1340:
For example IMO athletes being sent home for breaking team rules is procedure not controversy, referees making mistakes happens in pretty much every game in some sports (football/soccer), one fan *possibly* doing a Nazi salute - really? The fact that this is my opinion is the other problem, if people
1058:
Of all things that people have been moaning about in the UK regarding the games, which is after all not unusual as moaning is sort of a national sport in itself, the cost has actually featured very little. Perhaps because the scaremongers about it being a white elephant that would never make a profit
494:
I don't think it'd be possible to cut this out while the
Olympics continue, due to the # of editors who will be on the article and saying they feel that X is important. I think that maybe a week after the Olympics, we should list "controversies" like a drunk guy as you said on the talk page, and hold
479:
Sure we have that article and others--but the major concerns over China's human right abuses, air pollution, media censorship etc. are of obvious importance, whereas a drunk guy getting helped into a cab or a bunch of empty seats are not. Now, the question is how much is left after the tripe has been
971:
The same is true for me. I watch the
Olympics when I eat my lunch as well, for every day since the start of the Olympics (excluding Friday, Saturday, and Sunday). I am by no means an opponent of the Olympics, and I have contributed somewhat to the article. A controversy at the Olympics, such as a
956:
Not everyone writing on there is an opponent of the
Olympics. I, for, example wrote about the bottle throwing incident because it was an attempted disruption of a Men's 100m final and because it was funny that he happend to be sat next to a Dutch Bronze Medalist who hit him. There are some important
273:
Nyttend, NOTNEWS applies to ephemeral news stories that evaporate out of public consciousness after a few days. Can you really say that every controversy or concern listed in that article meets that description? I think a number of those concerns will be discussed for years to come and will affect
1047:
The
Olympics were bid for by Labour, but are now being run by the Conservatives. Both parties are therefore pretty chuffed about it, and it's hard to find any real political opposition to this stance now. There are activists against it, but they are activists, it's their job to be against stuff (no
938:
They're usually not hard to find in the city and country hosting the Games. (Although maybe not
Beijing. Protesting there is not quite so easy.) They usually have objections to the amount of money being spent, or the negative impact on citizens moved out of the way, or the politics of those running
572:
article too because that will, by its nature, bring together other unrelated sub-topics that have been cherry-picked because they have some negative or sensationalist spin. Note also that we don't ever seem to get counter-balancing articles with a positive spin - articles which cherry-pick praise,
517:
Oh, I understand your argument--I'm merely trying to point out that this is the kind of article whose existential validity may not be able to be decided on some inherent factor, but that it has to be established based on what's in the article itself. I'm quite on the fence, by the way, and I think
375:
I think it needs to be a rule that anyone who comments on this article's merits, should at least know the subject matter it refers to. I only got as far as the first line, "This article is full of trivia, such as the security company not getting enough security guards", before I nearly fell off my
1445:
No, the content has not generally been agreed after much discussion. One editor dominated proceedings for some time, with the goal of keeping everything no matter what, and abusing the crap out of anyone with a different view. He has now been blocked. It's time to clean up. That discussion is now
1012:
Theres no possibly about it but this isn't the place to have that argument. Most of the major sporting events of the past few years have such a page including the 2008 Summer Games, the 2010 Football world cup, 2012 European
Football Championships and the 2010 Olympic Games need I go on? It needs
1430:
and no doubt, when the heat dies down, there will be things that can be edited out as mere 'trivia' and run-of-the-mill 'concerns'. The current article is well sourced and has generally been agreed after much discussion about the content, on the Talk page. It would be completely impractical to
1213:
definition, it's from a dictionary, therefore it *should* be the most widely understood use of the term. Although I cannot think of any reason why a newspaper would use the word to mean something different that that, just like they wouldn't use the words 'good' or 'wrong' in different ways to
994:
My post did not say, nor even suggest that every contributor to the article was an
Olympic Games opponent. But those who are have clearly been attracted to it. That it attracts so much garbage as well as some possible sensible content is the problem. I still don't see throwing a bottle as a
1077:
Wow I really do need to change my name... Too many people thinking I'm part of an organization or something, when my intention was to say I hope (and I am) active on Knowledge, as an editor. Something like "Rasulalalala" would probably be better... Just gives off the wrong impression.
772:
per A Bit Iffy and Cla68. I think some clear guidelines as to what this article hopes to achieve would be useful, and there is no doubt the IOC and future Olympic hosts will have to consider some of the issues discussed in the article for future Games, so the topic has longevity.
297:. There is undoubtedly a whole load of stuff in there not much greater that tabloid journalism that can either be ditched or removed to the various nation or event articles, however there are also issues in there worthy of mention that became too long to be included in the main
755:. This looks like a legitimate spin-off from the 2012 Olympics articles series. Although some aspects can also be accommodated in other articles, it makes sense to bundle them together. And to avoid unnecessary junk creeping in, perhaps we should agree on inclusion criteria.--
697:. Bring in line with wikipedia standards of course. This is a very important topic which deserves its own article. Unfortunately some of the previous olympics do not have such an article and a huge chunk of information that had defined some of those olympics has been "lost".
1464:
I think you're exagerating slightly. A lot of editors have been involved in the discussions. But I agree, if a prominent participant has been blocked for persistent abuse (I can probably guess which one) that allows everyone else the chance to sort out things amicably.
224:. The Olympics is a large and complex event. Thus, it inevitably gives rise to a host of controversies and concerns on political, athletic, financial, socio-economic and other issues that would not fit into the main article. For that very reason we have articles on
829:
it will take a huge clean up effort, but once the next few weeks have passed and attention died down, it looks like it would be possible to create a decent article (once someone has gone through with a chainsaw and eliminated probably 80% of the current dross) --
254:
policy. You make my point exactly — these incidents are appearing in the news media, and that's because they, unlike we, are concentrated primarily on reporting the news. Why does an encyclopedia need to mention the allegedly trademark-infringing grandmother?
863:. I originally attempted to apply this as a closure myself, but someone apparently believes that there is infact, more than a snow ball's chance of this nomination succeeding, and has reversed it. Makes you wonder whether to play the lottery tomorrow or not.
1384:
This article documents the events happening behind the scenes of a historic event. Currently, the only sources listed are news sources only because this is a current event. That's not a good reason for deleting it. Deleting the article would be censorship.
1054:
Lord Coe, organiser of the London 2012 games, is very well liked by most of the country, and his popularity has only increased thanks to the actual success of the games, both in a sporting as well as socio/economic/feelgood/organisational/national prestige
1241:
Having a subarticle on controversies is what is keeping these topics from having an undue weight on the main article page. People will always want to add a few controversies to an article, because people perceive these issues to be important and notable.
1316:
Who are these "people"? Just because some people (or one people?) want to add stuff doesn't automatically justify its inclusion in Knowledge. I learnt that on my first day of editing here. I'm a "people" too, and I might have a different opinion.
714:. I have already removed quite a bit from this, and there is much more that probably needs to go (or be moved). The Opening Ceremony section, for example, is all either non-notable or should be covered in the Opening Ceremony article itself.
1740:
Olympics, so why not this one? If it needs to be cleaned up, some competition controversies could be merged with their respective event articles (e.g. just like the section "Men's team artistic gymnastics judging" was also included in that
163:
1570:
The inclusion criteria may be all over the place but the article contains much that is important and valid as related to the games. What is needed is an agreement as to just what to include. Deleting is throwing baby out with the bath
1742:
1522:: This article highlights some important issues regarding preparation and organization of the Olympics games and delete proposer's argument at most can justify a cleanup rather than a delete. Jacob-Dang 02:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
972:
person throwing a bottle, does not mean bias against the Olympics or the people in charge of the Olympics... Certainly not in my case. And I don't live in England either (nor Beijin, nor any city that has hosted it). --
1402:- usefully documents the disgraceful behaviour of the Argentines over the Falklands and the appalling attitude of the People's Republic of China, and their attempts to isolate the peaceful island of Taiwan
199:
91:
86:
157:
95:
808:- "Controversies" is a subjective concept, but the narrow time focus makes limitation and navigation of inclusion standards here possible and thus encyclopedic, whereas something like a broad
78:
1737:
1733:
1612:. I would definitely keep it; those controversial events are part of the Olympics. Besides, as the poster above pointed out, many topics in this page are supported by reliable sources.
1427:
454:
394:
310:
306:
229:
225:
250:
My concern is the existence of the article, which I just discovered. I object to its existence because it's purely news events and thus a violation of a substantial portion of the
349:
518:
your point, that there's maybe too many editors active to decide on it now, is well-taken. I think this is headed for a non-consensus, and a month from now we'll weed it out.
123:
118:
678:. Lots of silliness to be had, sure, but there's plenty of events of note in here; what isn't kept could be reconciled with the pages of the respective subjects.
1447:
453:- it's a good article, albeit can use some cutting out of unimportant/unnotable "controversies." We have these types of articles for other Olympics as well, see
429:
82:
732:
1051:
Nobody was displaced to make room for these Olympics. Correction - a group of allotments was moved, creating the sum total of one newspaper story if I recall.
957:
points on there that have to be documented as they were for the Beijing games. Admittedly there is also a lot of crap on there which needs to be removed. (
178:
145:
74:
66:
1550:
1431:
combine this information on the main article about the games and it is common practise to create separate sub-articles where they are warranted.
1776:
1767:
per the fact that we a looking at a puddle here. If I were the OP I would withdraw. Continuing this is pointless and so borderline disruptive.
1754:
1722:
1703:
1689:
1666:
1640:
1621:
1602:
1580:
1562:
1510:
1495:
1474:
1459:
1440:
1417:
1394:
1375:
1350:
1326:
1311:
1277:
1263:
1223:
1204:
1182:
1161:
1143:
1126:
1095:
1072:
1033:
1004:
989:
948:
933:
911:
890:
872:
850:
836:
821:
799:
782:
764:
744:
723:
706:
687:
660:
604:
582:
550:
527:
512:
489:
474:
441:
419:
385:
367:
338:
283:
264:
241:
215:
206:
in those pages, and we need not keep a page for attribution purposes when its information is included elsewhere in completely different words.
60:
565:
139:
1307:
1259:
359:
135:
1367:
1304:
1256:
902:
It's an out of control hotbed of complaining and whining. A home for Olympic Games opponents. Nothing useful will ever come of it.
393:
While there may be in need of some work, there is no question about the notability of the article. It should probably be moved to
335:
185:
1486:
I'm new to all this but the consensus seems to be overwhelmingly leaning towards Keep and prune the crap, so can we call this? (
1191:, then we must report it as such. I'm certainly not comfortable with that approach. But I am pleased to see the use of the word
480:
cut. At any rate, the argument (you're not the only one to make it, of course) of "but those articles exist" doesn't help much.
1538:
412:
17:
1772:
592:
202:. However, there's so much unnecessary newspaperish detail here that copying information from this page would result in
1636:
1029:
437:
151:
790:
as per DodgerOfZion lot of notable information, along with a lot of rubbish. Cleanup tag would be more appropriate. (
1219:
1178:
1068:
868:
809:
881:
There were some valid arguments for deletion (BTW: I favour retention) so due process should have been permitted).—
595:, but the article isn't inherently negative about the Games itself, I agree that much should be split out though.
1795:
1750:
1407:
1215:
1174:
1064:
864:
845:
831:
778:
40:
656:
578:
1685:
1632:
433:
1617:
1403:
1088:
982:
926:
683:
505:
467:
363:
1113:- As a group, it appears clear that controversies at this year's Olympics have received coverage meeting
916:
Not to object to your personal opinion, but who exactly would be an opponent of the Olympics, and why? --
1791:
1718:
1597:
1371:
1301:
1290:
the main page, that people always like to add, and happens to pertain to a particular topic category. --
1253:
702:
648:
56:
36:
1613:
844:
the best method to get to an actual article from the current state will be to nuke and start over. --
1746:
1558:
1526:
1413:
1363:
1017:
886:
774:
760:
740:
719:
600:
573:
success and things which went right. This further demonstrates the lack of balance and neutrality.
381:
355:
331:
298:
1530:
1342:
1576:
1534:
1346:
698:
652:
574:
546:
406:
171:
1681:
1591:
1139:
613:
Controversy seems to mean negative criticism - what else could it be? Just look at the sections:
352:
for a much smaller event we surely have enough details for an article on the blooming Olympics.
1268:
So it's the article for the garbage we don't want in the main article? Interesting perspective.
1501:
Yep, but see my response to the post immediately above. Please come and help with the pruning.
1059:
were proved wrong if not a few weeks before it kicked off, then certainly once it was under way
1662:
1390:
1187:
Some have argued that it's not up to us to define it, and if a newspaper anywhere says it's a
1081:
975:
919:
817:
679:
498:
460:
305:. The type of cleanup needed tends to occur on these articles (at least it did for equivalent
302:
260:
211:
195:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1790:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
313:
articles) once the Games are over and the media, and everyone else, have calmed down a bit -
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1714:
1594:. Many of the topics in the article have received significant coverage in reliable sources.
1506:
1491:
1455:
1322:
1291:
1273:
1243:
1200:
1157:
1122:
1025:
1000:
962:
944:
907:
795:
523:
485:
53:
1700:
1554:
1470:
1436:
882:
756:
736:
715:
596:
377:
314:
279:
237:
203:
1152:
the subject? The word "controversy" has been very loosely defined by some contributors.
1762:
1649:
1572:
858:
561:
542:
400:
1768:
1135:
1114:
251:
52:, discussion about improving the article can take place on the talk page as needed.
1677:
1655:
1386:
813:
256:
207:
112:
1502:
1487:
1451:
1318:
1269:
1196:
1153:
1118:
1021:
996:
958:
940:
903:
791:
519:
481:
1713:. The basic topic is fine, even though the article needs to be better written.
1553:, it shows the flaws, protests and suspensions of the players in the Olympics.
1195:
in your definition. On that basis, this article probably shouldn't exist yet.
1466:
1432:
275:
233:
621:
The protection of the Olympic brand has been the subject of some criticism.
995:
controversy though. It's just dramatic, possibly unacceptable behaviour.
1013:
cleaning up but theres really no reason to go against the norm.
647:
It's just a catalogue of complaints and criticisms. Knowledge is
626:
There has been criticism that companies that produce junk food...
1784:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
560:
The framing of the topic is inherently negative, contrary to
1171:
Disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
1428:
Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics
631:
The IOC and LOCOG have drawn criticism for accepting ...
455:
Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics
395:
Concerns and controversies over the 2012 Summer Olympics
230:
Concerns and controversies over the 2008 Summer Olympics
226:
Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics
397:
to follow the same naming scheme of similar articles. —
108:
104:
100:
170:
1134:. The subject is notable and has enough coverage. --
350:
Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012
939:them, or sporting administrators in general, or...
1209:Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. That's not
641:A complaint by the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine ...
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1798:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1044:A few points for the sake of factual accuracy:
432:for the existing discussion on the page move.
184:
8:
731:Note: This debate has been included in the
636:The decision ... was challenged in court ...
733:list of Sports-related deletion discussions
1680:. That stuff is relevant to the article.--
730:
75:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics
67:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics
1551:Olympic Games scandals and controversies
301:article and so came here as a necessary
1732:. We have controversy articles for the
842:delete without prejudice for recreation
568:. We should not cover the matter in a
1338:Keep but it needs a massive clean-up.
566:Security for the 2012 Summer Olympics
7:
593:Criticisms of the 2012 Olympic Games
1173:What other definitions are there?
24:
591:I would agree if the article was
651:the IOC complaints department.
274:planning for future Olympiads.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1426:...it follows on the heels of
1288:would prefer not to clutter up
810:List of Olympics controversies
1:
1777:22:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1755:20:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1723:19:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1704:19:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1690:18:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1667:16:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1653:in the Olympic Park today.
1641:16:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1622:13:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1603:12:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1581:11:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1563:04:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1511:02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1496:23:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1475:10:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1460:02:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1441:23:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1418:19:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1395:15:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1376:12:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1351:12:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1327:03:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1312:02:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1278:11:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1264:11:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1224:12:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1205:01:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1183:00:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1162:23:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1144:23:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1127:23:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
1096:02:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1073:00:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1034:00:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
1005:00:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
990:23:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
949:23:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
934:23:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
912:23:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
891:16:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
873:23:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
851:13:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
837:17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
822:16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
800:15:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
783:13:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
765:11:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
745:11:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
724:10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
707:10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
688:08:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
661:12:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
605:10:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
583:07:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
551:06:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
528:02:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
513:01:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
490:01:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
475:03:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
442:02:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
420:02:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
386:02:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
368:01:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
339:01:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
295:Keep and clean out the crap
284:01:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
265:01:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
242:01:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
216:01:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
61:22:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
1815:
1588:Keep and clean-up/improve
1282:It's the article for the
1787:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1448:the article's Talk page
1048:offence, Activist1234)
1216:HeCameFromTheShadows
1175:HeCameFromTheShadows
1065:HeCameFromTheShadows
865:HeCameFromTheShadows
299:2012 Summer Olympics
1674:Keep with additions
847:The Red Pen of Doom
833:The Red Pen of Doom
1450:. Please join in.
434:Sport and politics
48:The result was
1678:NBC stuff to boot
1610:Keep and clean-up
1601:
1543:
1529:comment added by
1366:comment added by
1310:
1262:
1094:
1037:
1020:comment added by
988:
932:
753:Keep and clean up
747:
712:Keep and clean up
511:
473:
358:comment added by
348:: If we can have
196:not the newspaper
1806:
1789:
1658:
1647:Looks like it's
1600:
1598:Northamerica1000
1595:
1542:
1523:
1420:
1378:
1299:
1296:
1251:
1248:
1091:
1085:
1079:
1036:
1014:
985:
979:
973:
929:
923:
917:
848:
834:
508:
502:
496:
470:
464:
458:
417:
415:
409:
403:
370:
329:
326:
323:
320:
317:
189:
188:
174:
126:
116:
98:
34:
1814:
1813:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1796:deletion review
1785:
1775:
1747:Illneedasaviour
1656:
1596:
1524:
1411:
1404:Trains in Space
1361:
1292:
1286:things that we
1244:
1089:
1083:
1015:
983:
977:
927:
921:
846:
832:
812:would not be.
775:Paul MacDermott
506:
500:
468:
462:
413:
407:
401:
399:
353:
327:
324:
321:
318:
315:
131:
122:
89:
73:
70:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1812:
1810:
1801:
1800:
1780:
1779:
1771:
1758:
1757:
1726:
1725:
1707:
1706:
1693:
1692:
1670:
1669:
1644:
1643:
1625:
1624:
1606:
1605:
1584:
1583:
1565:
1544:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1421:
1416:comment added
1397:
1379:
1354:
1353:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1284:less important
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1129:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1061:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
966:
896:
895:
894:
893:
876:
875:
855:
854:
853:
824:
803:
785:
767:
749:
748:
727:
726:
709:
691:
690:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
645:
644:
643:
638:
633:
628:
623:
615:
614:
608:
607:
586:
585:
554:
553:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
447:
446:
445:
444:
423:
422:
391:Keep and Move.
388:
372:
371:
342:
341:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
268:
267:
245:
244:
192:
191:
128:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1811:
1799:
1797:
1793:
1788:
1782:
1781:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1728:
1727:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1705:
1702:
1698:
1695:
1694:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:293.xx.xxx.xx
1679:
1675:
1672:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1652:
1651:
1646:
1645:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1626:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1608:
1607:
1604:
1599:
1593:
1589:
1586:
1585:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1545:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1482:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1446:under way at
1444:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1398:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1380:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1336:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1297:
1295:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1258:
1255:
1249:
1247:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1148:Exactly what
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1130:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1043:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
992:
991:
987:
986:
981:
980:
970:
967:
964:
960:
955:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
937:
936:
935:
931:
930:
925:
924:
915:
914:
913:
909:
905:
901:
898:
897:
892:
888:
884:
880:
879:
878:
877:
874:
870:
866:
862:
860:
856:
852:
849:
843:
840:
839:
838:
835:
828:
825:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
804:
801:
797:
793:
789:
786:
784:
780:
776:
771:
768:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
729:
728:
725:
721:
717:
713:
710:
708:
704:
700:
696:
693:
692:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
669:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
637:
634:
632:
629:
627:
624:
622:
619:
618:
617:
616:
612:
611:
610:
609:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
587:
584:
580:
576:
571:
570:controversies
567:
563:
559:
556:
555:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
529:
525:
521:
516:
515:
514:
510:
509:
504:
503:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
478:
477:
476:
472:
471:
466:
465:
456:
452:
449:
448:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
418:
416:
410:
404:
396:
392:
389:
387:
383:
379:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
351:
347:
344:
343:
340:
337:
333:
330:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
292:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
262:
258:
253:
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:Knowledge is
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1786:
1783:
1761:
1729:
1710:
1696:
1673:
1654:
1648:
1628:
1614:Gnayshkr3020
1609:
1587:
1567:
1546:
1525:— Preceding
1519:
1483:
1423:
1399:
1381:
1362:— Preceding
1357:
1337:
1293:
1287:
1283:
1245:
1238:
1210:
1192:
1188:
1170:
1166:
1149:
1131:
1110:
1082:
1080:
1016:— Preceding
1009:
976:
974:
968:
953:
920:
918:
899:
857:
841:
826:
805:
787:
769:
752:
711:
694:
680:DodgerOfZion
675:
671:
640:
635:
630:
625:
620:
569:
557:
538:
499:
497:
461:
459:
450:
398:
390:
360:86.40.106.79
354:— Preceding
345:
294:
221:
204:undue weight
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1715:Binksternet
1676:Add in the
1592:WP:PRESERVE
1412:—Preceding
1368:14.202.8.87
1189:controversy
1167:Controversy
562:core policy
428:Please see
158:free images
54:Bencherlite
1701:jnestorius
1631:Regards.--
1555:TruPepitoM
1549:Just like
883:A bit iffy
757:A bit iffy
737:A bit iffy
716:Black Kite
597:Black Kite
378:FerrerFour
303:WP:SPINOFF
1792:talk page
1769:→Yaniv256
1573:Egghead06
1531:JacobDang
1343:BulbaThor
1193:prolonged
543:Jrcrin001
402:JmaJeremy
200:the event
50:snow keep
37:talk page
1794:or in a
1773:contribs
1571:water.--
1539:contribs
1527:unsigned
1364:unsigned
1305:contribs
1257:contribs
1169:. Noun:
1136:Sofffie7
1084:Activism
1030:contribs
1018:unsigned
978:Activism
922:Activism
699:Vanyagor
676:clean up
501:Activism
463:Activism
356:unsigned
119:View log
39:or in a
1743:article
1657:Lugnuts
1650:snowing
1590:– Per
1484:Comment
1414:undated
1387:USchick
1010:Comment
969:Comment
954:Comment
827:comment
814:Carrite
346:Comment
257:Nyttend
208:Nyttend
164:WP refs
152:scholar
92:protect
87:history
1633:Kürbis
1503:HiLo48
1488:Natt39
1452:HiLo48
1319:HiLo48
1270:HiLo48
1197:HiLo48
1154:HiLo48
1119:VQuakr
1115:WP:GNG
1022:Natt39
997:HiLo48
959:Natt39
941:HiLo48
904:HiLo48
900:Delete
792:Natt39
653:Warden
575:Warden
558:Delete
539:Delete
520:Drmies
482:Drmies
309:&
252:WP:NOT
136:Google
96:delete
1467:Sionk
1433:Sionk
1308:email
1260:email
1239:Keep:
1055:sense
276:Cla68
234:Cla68
179:JSTOR
140:books
124:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
1765:keep
1763:Snow
1751:talk
1738:2010
1736:and
1734:2008
1730:Keep
1719:talk
1711:Keep
1697:Keep
1686:talk
1663:talk
1629:Keep
1618:talk
1577:talk
1568:Keep
1559:talk
1547:Keep
1535:talk
1520:Keep
1507:talk
1492:talk
1471:talk
1456:talk
1437:talk
1424:Keep
1408:talk
1400:Keep
1391:talk
1382:Keep
1372:talk
1358:Keep
1347:talk
1323:talk
1302:Talk
1294:李博杰
1274:talk
1254:Talk
1246:李博杰
1220:talk
1201:talk
1179:talk
1158:talk
1140:talk
1132:Keep
1123:talk
1111:Keep
1090:1234
1069:talk
1026:talk
1001:talk
984:1234
963:talk
945:talk
928:1234
908:talk
887:talk
869:talk
861:keep
859:Snow
818:talk
806:Keep
796:talk
788:Keep
779:talk
770:Keep
761:talk
741:talk
720:talk
703:talk
695:Keep
684:talk
674:and
672:Keep
657:talk
601:talk
579:talk
547:talk
524:talk
507:1234
486:talk
469:1234
457:. --
451:Keep
438:talk
430:here
414:Cont
408:Ƭalk
382:talk
364:talk
311:2010
307:2008
280:talk
261:talk
238:talk
228:and
222:Keep
212:talk
172:FENS
146:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
1745:).
1410:)
649:not
186:TWL
121:•
117:– (
1753:)
1721:)
1688:)
1665:)
1639:)
1620:)
1579:)
1561:)
1541:)
1537:•
1509:)
1498:)
1494:)
1473:)
1458:)
1439:)
1393:)
1374:)
1349:)
1325:)
1298:|
1276:)
1250:|
1242:--
1222:)
1211:my
1203:)
1181:)
1160:)
1150:IS
1142:)
1125:)
1078:--
1071:)
1032:)
1028:•
1003:)
965:))
947:)
910:)
889:)
871:)
820:)
798:)
781:)
763:)
743:)
735:.
722:)
705:)
686:)
659:)
603:)
581:)
549:)
526:)
488:)
440:)
384:)
366:)
336:C)
332:(T
328:12
325:nt
322:me
319:se
316:Ba
282:)
263:)
240:)
214:)
166:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
1749:(
1717:(
1684:(
1661:(
1637:✔
1635:(
1616:(
1575:(
1557:(
1533:(
1505:(
1490:(
1469:(
1454:(
1435:(
1406:(
1389:(
1370:(
1345:(
1321:(
1300:—
1272:(
1252:—
1218:(
1199:(
1177:(
1156:(
1138:(
1121:(
1067:(
1024:(
999:(
961:(
943:(
906:(
885:(
867:(
816:(
802:)
794:(
777:(
759:(
739:(
718:(
701:(
682:(
655:(
599:(
577:(
545:(
522:(
484:(
436:(
411:•
405:•
380:(
362:(
334:.
278:(
259:(
236:(
210:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.