1103:, the key sentence in the NYT story seems to be this: "another indication that leaders in the traditional financial services industry are now taking digital money seriously". WSJ: "Circle's offering isn't ground breaking". Forbes: "Circle's entry into the market adds another business with serious funding and experience attempting to take the 4-year-old Bitcoin into the mainstream". I can see where you're coming from, but I still see the sources saying not-yet-notable startup
325:
show suitability for an encycopedia. Rather than tinker with the concept of notability, this could best be handled by a new provision in WP:NOT, called perhaps NOT STARTUP. I intend to formally propose this in a week or so-- I'm trying to figure out the best wording. In the meantime we can accomplish the same thing by deleting the articles here -- we can and should delete whatever we think should not be in WP.
201:
whatever might happen to just slide under the GNG subguideline . In deciding whether to make them, we cshould be influenced by the extent of promotionalism. As for that, look at the next to last paragraph. Furthermore, it's been written by a SPA with two articles to his credit: this, and an article on the firm's CEO. It's reasonable to assume an undeclared conflict of interest.
899:, IAR is on the table at debates. But more to the point, these debates create "Wiki case law" where precedents and parameters for valid arguments are established and reinforced. This isn't a trivial objection like "I don't like their circular logo"; this is a debate deeply grounded in interpretation of WP notability and the broader issue
324:
article for example, is not about the company's accomplishments, which seem to be non-existent, but about the promise of it and what it acknowledges are "a slew of other technical startups" that are trying to do the same thing. In my opinion, articles about the initial financing of a company do not
200:
Not notable. & Promotional, There are references, but they are limited to information about the initial funding of the company and PR influenced articles about its possible future prospects. This do not show any RW significance, and, according to WP:N, we are not obliged to make articles about
1028:
is, the more likely there's something encyclopaedic going on sooner or later, but this isn't Yellow Pages, Linked-in or
Techcrunch. We have no duty to list all funded startups. Don't get me wrong, GNG vs promo - two valid opinions to take here. I'm voicing my concern that this should be transparent
665:
reason for deletion" stated elsewhere (my emphasis). WP articles shouldn't be a way for paid actors to start a crummy PR fluff piece and have volunteers finish it in order to promote a company and its execs. I've been over this ground many, many times at COIN and it just takes time away from adding
1446:. The sources discussed above by Cunard and others could be the basis of an article that actually describes the company and what it does. But what we have now appears to be purely a vehicle for investment promotion. Look what a good value this company is! Famous people poured money into it! Feh. —
399:
are in major, respected publications and are substantial, not brief announcements. There are plenty of bloated articles about companies on
Knowledge (XXG) that are cited to press releases, trade journals and blogs, but this isn't one of them. If we don't trust the NYT and WSJ then we might as well
1067:
then we need to delete hundreds of thousands of articles. While I understand the sentiment of the !deletes with regards to discouraging promotional editing, the article has been cleaned up and this isn't the place for argue for exceptions from well-established guidelines. Deleting articles purely
526:
has said all that needs to be said already. Knowledge (XXG) cannot be allowed to be used for profit in this way at the abuse of the voluntary unpaid time that dedicated users spend building this encyclopedia which in spite of some biographies and articles about some companies, was never
844:
would still be calling bitcoin 'not a safe store of value' rather than investing fifty million bucks? Whether this has an outright-revolutionary effect on society (business&consumer society but society nonetheless), over the next two decades, or "merely" an economic impact on the ecommerce
414:
Hypothetically, removing all the funding round articles, this has WIRED and NYT which are articles with info we can use to write about the subject. It appears useful to raise the bar in this way and provides clarity for assessing notability (this one would be borderline unless more non-excluded
970:
definition we are discussing here would require for corp-articles henceforth... except that, you know, sources about fifty million in funding are not REALLY wiki-reliable sources, so we can delete those, and these other sources in the business section, no boring business news is ever REALLY
666:
WP content. As an independent and sufficient rationale, the article is three sentences long and shows little prospect for growing meaningfully – that is beyond mentioning money moving from one bank account to another – until and unless this startup actually produces something; therefore
52:. In terms of numbers, disapproval for what is assumed to be the promotional motive for the article's creation is matched by opinions noting that it meets the notability guideline. Neither argument compels deletion or retention according to our policies, so it's a draw.
971:
wiki-notable so let us delete those sources.... You catch my drift. I hate it when people advocate deleting things as 'not encyclopedic' ... especially sources. Anyways, I'll keep my whining about this-is-not-the-place to myself. Because I too love
975:, and I too would like to see some real solutions for the problems being (somewhat tangentially) discussed here. I just strongly disagree that it is any kind of 'solution' is to selectively redefine GNG and delete half a million articles. Best,
546:
284:, maybe I'm missing something here, but with lengthy articles about the company in Wired, Boston Globe, New York Times and the WSJ over the past 18 months, this isn't an article I'd consider for deletion. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.
849:, but that single sea-change event has legitimized bitcoin as a payment-transfer-system, if not necessarily as a currency. This isn't me blabbering, this is why the most recent coverage-burst made the LATimes/etc. See the nearest
875:
pass WP:GNG, so I don't try deleting her -- nor her discography. Quid pro quo, is that people who dislike corporations, money, startups, business, bitcoin, investing, crytography, and whatever else seems to be the hang-up here at
319:
I am not so sure about the value of the references mentioned: More and more I realize that even reputable media will print articles that are no better than press releases. We need to look carefully at what the article says. The
527:
intended to be an additional business networking platform. Whether the text itself sounds promotional or not, the article is an advert and a plethora of sources has never been an automatic assumption of notability.
1068:
because of them being the result of PE has never been policy and for good reason as we'd be spiting ourselves. There are plenty of good sources available which could be used to write a neutral and informative article.
169:
880:
AfD, should not be trying to delete *this* article, since it also so passes. WP:GNG is a long-standing compromise, and it shall not be successfully be redefined here at AfD, methinks, whether this one or another
853:, or the article-talkpage. Granted, it's not as big as walmart.com hypothetically saying they'll henceforth be accepting bitcoin, but it's a definitive shift from edgy, to edgy-but-mainstream.
855:
That said, as you know very well, this thread is ENTIRELY out of scope for AfD... where we decide whether WP:GNG has been demonstrated, not muse about 'true' cultural and societal impact.
416:
122:
610:
950:
deletionists. ;-) I am happy to stop telling you both what to do, and will do so immediately, apologies if anyone was put out. :-) But I'm also happy that you admit you
1053:
Mainly because I found plenty more sources which show that coverage isn't restricted to the two rounds of funding that all the current RS present in the article stem from: e.g.
742:
1029:
and a free decision, at a point where the promo weeding needs doing and maybe replanting. Do we want to replant before the weeds are gone, including all their invisible roots?
163:
302:
I'd agree with you normally. Need to say that this is part of a promo cleanup - see the connected on the talk. Coming back to normal AfD, what do they do? Where's the beef?
590:
570:
735:
465:
1032:
Coming back to the point, the sources all look too shallow to build a useful encyclopaedic article on what they do. It's already covered in his article.
1406:
1187:
1060:
129:
519:
1134:
for now as although the article is better sourced now, in any case, it may be closer connected to him until the company establishes itself more.
943:
No, perfectly fair assessment. Truth be told, I suspect I'm annoyed at AfD being used as a way to re-define GNG, mostly because I believe many
453:
per the numerous significant writeups in independent and reliable sources. All discussion of changing policies should be done elsewhere. --
454:
1205:
721:
1234:
1054:
95:
90:
1087:
976:
883:
805:
99:
1260:
1391:
17:
1016:. As for telling others what to do, you can add me to your list making three not two. It's a bit boomerang here, as it comes across
82:
184:
966:
written) has in fact been demonstrated. Circle actually has 42 sources, quite literally, which seems to be what the proposed neo-
151:
1418:
1313:
766:
1057:
840:
Not false whatsoever: both are young creatures, being used by hypercorps, to generate ROI. Measurable impact: mainly, that
1414:
1498:
1299:
The article provides a detailed profile of Circle, adding a footnote about the funding in the second-to-last paragraph.
40:
145:
823:
776:
here at AfD, please pretty please. Or at least, target something *worthy* of getting booted from wikipedia, like
510:. Purely promotional and obviously a case of someone 'mistakenly' believing that Knowledge (XXG) is another
141:
716:, and both Kudpung and DGG possess said tool. Bangkeep rationale, using only the extant refs, just for kicks:
231:
per undisclosed paid editing. Cutting to a stub isn't the right measure this time. (stable door, horse, bolted)
1451:
1140:
1477:
1455:
1431:
1176:
1145:
1120:
1095:
1077:
1044:
984:
938:
916:
896:
I would really like people to stop telling me what to talk about at AfD. As you yourself have noted elsewhere
891:
835:
813:
789:
773:
679:
645:
622:
602:
582:
561:
536:
494:
469:
431:
409:
386:
336:
314:
293:
272:
243:
212:
64:
1229:
1091:
980:
887:
809:
191:
1410:
1021:
365:
1494:
86:
36:
864:
395:
article is awful and I'm surprised nothing has been done about it. However, the articles cited in the
1024:
applies. No kittens (or Hannah
Montana articles) will be hurt by this AfD. The bigger the investment
822:
has a measurable effect on culture. Maybe pop culture, but culture nonetheless. Which is why we have
695:
should be pursued in talkspace (WT and usertalk). AfD is not for cleanup, and if the article passes
1464:
While the article certainly can be expanded, the article is neutrally written and reliably sourced.
1162:
1158:
1017:
1013:
1009:
846:
749:
667:
478:
Kudpung's argument (and the nom) answer that. In guideline form, it's IAR for the improvement of WP
352:
222:
1447:
1135:
177:
157:
1469:
1423:
1200:
1005:
826:
and other things. What would be the difference to the world if Circle had never been created? —
752:
about the company. But even if it didn't, those four seem sufficient, to my wiki-eyes, to pass
713:
704:
867:'important' ... because WP:GNG is something we all can agree on, more or less. Hannah Montana
788:
where millions of dollars are involved... oh. Right. Uh... hmmm... maybe I better rethink my
1286:
1116:
1073:
1040:
912:
856:
831:
728:
675:
639:
618:
598:
578:
557:
532:
490:
427:
382:
310:
268:
239:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1493:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1107:
to do something important. Maybe these sources should be added to the
Bitcoin article, or to
1064:
1025:
944:
907:
a reason to keep, in the case of promotional editing (apologies if I have misrepresented). —
850:
745:
450:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1473:
1427:
1367:
1281:
1020:(and don't like Hannah Montana), and if we delete this we must delete 1/2 million articles.
801:
793:
785:
417:
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Depth_of_coverage_--_funding_reports
396:
78:
70:
1465:
1443:
972:
959:
955:
753:
696:
692:
688:
446:
405:
289:
967:
769:
1353:
This article provides a detailed profile Circle and is not about its receiving funding.
1326:
This article provides a detailed profile Circle and is not about its receiving funding.
1154:
819:
797:
777:
392:
257:
55:
1166:
1108:
934:
841:
781:
332:
208:
859:
There's a very good reason that we use WP:GNG, rather than philosophical discussion
547:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Next
Internet Millionaire (2nd nomination)
518:
and a comercial networking site or the Yellow Pages.. Whether it is part of the
1340:
1112:
1100:
1069:
1035:
908:
827:
731:
671:
654:
635:
614:
594:
574:
552:
528:
515:
485:
422:
377:
305:
263:
234:
661:'s emerging NOT STARTUP philosophy, as well as his "lack of notability is not the
116:
958:
here, and not using AfD for the wiki-traditional function of determining whether
1387:
1363:
1333:"Jeremy Allaire Opens His Long-Awaited Bitcoin Product Circle Up To The Public"
1336:
1309:
768:
The others I mention ARE NOT regurgitated press releases, they are impeccably
401:
357:
285:
482:
the guidelines follow best practice, which is in this direction (I believe).
1360:"Circle launches Bitcoin wallet for the average Joe — anywhere in the world"
1255:
1157:. The references right now are all due to their fundraising activities. Per
792:
about the teen-pop-stars, huh, if I think that millions of bucks tied up in
929:
900:
772:, and if you don't like it, get WP:RS and/or WP:GNG redefined. But stop
658:
523:
327:
203:
800:
as the vehicle for Disney advertising is also wiki-notable? Could be a
1383:
1359:
1332:
1305:
1276:
1250:
1224:
1195:
260:(in current stub form) as doesn't add any more than the section there.
1384:"Circle's new Bitcoin service is so easy your parents could use it"
1225:"Jeremy Allaire's Bitcoin Start-Up, Circle, Unveils First Product"
1008:
Do you have any evidence for a "ROI"? Else that whole argument is
724:
796:
and the corresponding press-coverage is wiki-notable, then maybe
765:
straight republication of PR, and I've removed it from mainspace.
371:"brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business"
1487:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
738:
717:
1306:"Circle Emerges From Stealth To Bring Bitcoin To The Masses"
1251:"Circle wants to be your friendly neighborhood bitcoin bank"
1277:"This Digital Wallet Could Finally Get You Into Bitcoin"
1086:"as we'd be spiting ourselves" Agreed, crucial point.
1411:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline
897:
112:
108:
104:
657:'s emerging BOGO philosophy nicely articulated above,
360:- to treat PR/primary sources as primary not secondary
176:
1186:
per the significant coverage in multiple independent
400:
give up, or re-write
Knowledge (XXG)'s ground rules.
374:"announcements of funding rounds of the business" ?
691:, no dern question about it. Attempts to redefine
190:
1218:The article provides a detailed profile of Circle.
845:business and globalization of finance, depends on
633:. It got financing, so what? Business as usual. --
611:list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1501:). No further edits should be made to this page.
514:, not understanding the difference between an
708:. AfD is also not for revenge on the eeevilll
591:list of Business-related deletion discussions
571:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
8:
609:Note: This debate has been included in the
589:Note: This debate has been included in the
569:Note: This debate has been included in the
1196:"Start-Up Unveils Bitcoin Payments Product"
712:undisclosed paid editors, either, there is
1413:, which requires "significant coverage in
903:raised that WP:GNG is a reason to delete,
608:
588:
568:
865:what is truly and really and measurably
445:- a clear, and easy to see, passing of
415:sources are added). The proposal is at
1063:. If these aren't sufficient to meet
636:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
545:Well said. I share that sentiment at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
871:belong in the encyclopedia, but she
687:and please quit this stuff. Passes
857:If the WP:42 fits, you must acquit.
520:Orangemoody paid spamming campaign
24:
1405:There is sufficient coverage in
1358:Kokalitcheva, Kia (2014-09-29).
1304:Shieber, Jonathan (2014-05-15).
341:Candidates for raising the bar:
1478:02:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
1456:00:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
1432:19:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
1382:Leibel, Michael (2014-05-16).
1331:Cutler, Kim-Mai (2014-04-29).
1177:15:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
1146:05:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
1121:14:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
1096:21:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
1078:22:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
1045:09:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
985:16:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
939:23:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
917:21:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
892:20:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
836:21:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
814:16:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
784:, not corporate vehicles like
744:make me strongly suspect that
680:05:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
646:05:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
623:03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
603:03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
583:03:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
562:12:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
537:07:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
495:13:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
470:06:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
432:00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
410:11:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
387:02:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
337:01:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
315:00:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
294:23:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
273:22:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
244:10:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
213:08:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
65:08:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
1:
1194:Alden, William (2014-03-26).
702:, then nominating for AfD is
1249:Newton, Casey (2014-05-16).
927:yes, that's what I say too.
748:might just hold a few more
461:Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR
1518:
1275:Alba, Davey (2015-04-30).
1223:Vigna, Paul (2014-05-16).
1132:Redirect to Jeremy Allaire
824:Hannah Montana discography
761:Now, to be fair, this one
1012:and, in fact, underlines
653:preferably speedily, per
368:- adding to the existing
1490:Please do not modify it.
1468:clearly does not apply.
1409:to allow Circle to pass
32:Please do not modify it.
1230:The Wall Street Journal
954:pulling out-of-process
818:Totally false analogy.
756:as currently written.
258:Jeremy Allaire#Circle
700:as presently written
861:amongst wikipedians
1201:The New York Times
1006:User:75.108.94.227
506:- and preferably
1153:- or redirect to
882:
625:
605:
585:
63:
1509:
1492:
1421:of the subject".
1415:reliable sources
1407:reliable sources
1402:
1400:
1399:
1390:. Archived from
1378:
1376:
1375:
1366:. Archived from
1351:
1349:
1348:
1339:. Archived from
1324:
1322:
1321:
1312:. Archived from
1297:
1295:
1294:
1285:. Archived from
1271:
1269:
1268:
1259:. Archived from
1245:
1243:
1242:
1233:. Archived from
1216:
1214:
1213:
1204:. Archived from
1188:reliable sources
1173:
1170:
1143:
1138:
1043:
1038:
854:
802:teachable moment
794:Circle_(company)
786:Circle (company)
642:
560:
555:
493:
488:
462:
459:
430:
425:
397:Circle (company)
385:
380:
313:
308:
271:
266:
242:
237:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
79:Circle (company)
71:Circle (company)
62:
60:
53:
34:
1517:
1516:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1499:deletion review
1488:
1397:
1395:
1381:
1373:
1371:
1357:
1346:
1344:
1330:
1319:
1317:
1303:
1292:
1290:
1274:
1266:
1264:
1248:
1240:
1238:
1222:
1211:
1209:
1193:
1171:
1168:
1141:
1136:
1034:
1033:
714:a tool for that
705:the wrong thing
644:
640:
551:
550:
529:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
484:
483:
460:
455:
421:
420:
376:
375:
304:
303:
262:
261:
233:
232:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1515:
1513:
1504:
1503:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1459:
1458:
1448:David Eppstein
1436:
1435:
1404:
1403:
1379:
1355:
1328:
1301:
1272:
1246:
1220:
1180:
1179:
1155:Jeremy Allaire
1148:
1137:SwisterTwister
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1081:
1080:
1030:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
820:Hannah Montana
798:Hannah Montana
790:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
778:Hannah Montana
774:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
758:
757:
682:
648:
634:
627:
626:
606:
586:
566:
565:
564:
540:
539:
500:
499:
498:
497:
473:
472:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
393:Jeremy Allaire
372:
363:
362:
361:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
297:
296:
278:
277:
276:
275:
254:Merge/Redirect
247:
246:
226:
225:per normal AfD
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1514:
1502:
1500:
1496:
1491:
1485:
1484:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1434:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1394:on 2015-09-19
1393:
1389:
1385:
1380:
1370:on 2015-09-19
1369:
1365:
1361:
1356:
1354:
1343:on 2015-09-19
1342:
1338:
1334:
1329:
1327:
1316:on 2015-09-19
1315:
1311:
1307:
1302:
1300:
1289:on 2015-09-19
1288:
1284:
1283:
1278:
1273:
1263:on 2015-09-19
1262:
1258:
1257:
1252:
1247:
1237:on 2015-09-19
1236:
1232:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1219:
1208:on 2015-09-19
1207:
1203:
1202:
1197:
1192:
1191:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1144:
1139:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1109:wire transfer
1106:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1088:75.108.94.227
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1037:
1027:
1023:
1022:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
986:
982:
978:
977:75.108.94.227
974:
969:
965:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
942:
941:
940:
936:
932:
931:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
895:
894:
893:
889:
885:
884:75.108.94.227
879:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
852:
848:
843:
842:Goldman Sachs
839:
838:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
816:
815:
811:
807:
806:75.108.94.227
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
783:
782:Justin Bieber
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
736:
733:
729:
726:
722:
719:
715:
711:
707:
706:
701:
698:
694:
690:
686:
683:
681:
677:
673:
669:
664:
660:
656:
652:
649:
647:
643:
637:
632:
629:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
607:
604:
600:
596:
592:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
567:
563:
559:
554:
548:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
502:
501:
496:
492:
487:
481:
477:
476:
475:
474:
471:
467:
463:
458:
452:
448:
444:
441:
433:
429:
424:
418:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
398:
394:
390:
389:
388:
384:
379:
373:
370:
369:
367:
364:
359:
356:
355:
354:
351:
350:
340:
339:
338:
334:
330:
329:
323:
318:
317:
316:
312:
307:
301:
300:
299:
298:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
279:
274:
270:
265:
259:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
241:
236:
230:
229:Speedy Delete
227:
224:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
205:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1489:
1486:
1439:
1422:
1396:. Retrieved
1392:the original
1372:. Retrieved
1368:the original
1352:
1345:. Retrieved
1341:the original
1325:
1318:. Retrieved
1314:the original
1298:
1291:. Retrieved
1287:the original
1280:
1265:. Retrieved
1261:the original
1254:
1239:. Retrieved
1235:the original
1228:
1217:
1210:. Retrieved
1206:the original
1199:
1183:
1167:
1165:, at least.
1150:
1131:
1104:
1050:
1031:
963:
951:
947:
945:AfD regulars
928:
904:
877:
872:
868:
860:
762:
732:Boston Globe
709:
703:
699:
684:
662:
650:
630:
516:Encyclopedia
511:
507:
503:
479:
456:
442:
391:I agree the
366:WP:CORPDEPTH
326:
321:
281:
253:
228:
218:
202:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1419:independent
1388:VentureBeat
1364:VentureBeat
1111:instead? —
737:&&
723:&&
685:Strong Keep
164:free images
1398:2015-09-19
1374:2015-09-19
1347:2015-09-19
1337:TechCrunch
1320:2015-09-19
1310:TechCrunch
1293:2015-09-19
1267:2015-09-19
1241:2015-09-19
1212:2015-09-19
1163:WP:TOOSOON
1161:, this is
1159:WP:NOTNEWS
1105:attempting
1018:WP:ILIKEIT
1014:WP:TOOSOON
1010:WP:CRYSTAL
905:not always
847:WP:CRYSTAL
750:WP:SOURCES
668:WP:TOOSOON
641:reply here
358:Churnalism
353:WP:NOTNEWS
223:WP:TOOSOON
58:Sandstein
1495:talk page
1417:that are
1256:The Verge
964:presently
804:here....
710:allegedly
615:• Gene93k
595:• Gene93k
575:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1497:or in a
869:does not
522:or not,
512:LinkedIn
508:speedily
123:View log
39:or in a
1113:Brianhe
1101:Smartse
1070:SmartSE
1065:WP:CORP
1036:Widefox
1026:WP:NEWS
909:Brianhe
851:WP:GOOG
828:Brianhe
746:WP:GOOG
741:Mar'14.
734:Mar'14,
727:Apr'15,
720:Apr'15,
672:Brianhe
655:Kudpung
553:Widefox
486:Widefox
451:WP:CORP
423:Widefox
378:Widefox
306:Widefox
264:Widefox
235:Widefox
219:Comment
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1470:Cunard
1466:WP:TNT
1444:WP:TNT
1440:Delete
1424:Cunard
1151:Delete
1061:Oct 13
1058:Sep 14
1055:Dec 14
973:WP:IAR
960:WP:GNG
956:WP:IAR
863:about
754:WP:GNG
697:WP:GNG
693:WP:GNG
689:WP:GNG
651:Delete
631:Delete
504:Delete
457:1Wiki8
447:WP:GNG
221:Looks
142:Google
100:delete
1282:Wired
968:WP:42
935:talk
770:WP:RS
730:plus
725:Wired
402:Sionk
333:talk
322:wired
286:Sionk
209:talk
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1474:talk
1452:talk
1442:per
1428:talk
1184:Keep
1172:5969
1169:Onel
1142:talk
1117:talk
1092:talk
1074:talk
1051:Keep
1041:talk
981:talk
962:(as
913:talk
888:talk
881:one.
878:this
873:does
832:talk
810:talk
780:and
676:talk
670:. —
663:only
619:talk
599:talk
579:talk
558:talk
533:talk
491:talk
480:plus
466:talk
449:and
443:Keep
428:talk
406:talk
383:talk
311:talk
290:talk
282:Keep
269:talk
240:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
952:are
948:are
930:DGG
901:DGG
739:NYT
718:WSJ
659:DGG
524:DGG
328:DGG
256:to
252:or
204:DGG
192:TWL
121:– (
1476:)
1454:)
1430:)
1386:.
1362:.
1335:.
1308:.
1279:.
1253:.
1227:.
1198:.
1119:)
1094:)
1076:)
1039:;
983:)
937:)
915:)
890:)
834:)
812:)
763:is
678:)
621:)
613:.
601:)
593:.
581:)
573:.
556:;
549:.
535:)
489:;
468:)
426:;
419:.
408:)
381:;
335:)
309:;
292:)
267:;
238:;
211:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
1472:(
1450:(
1426:(
1401:.
1377:.
1350:.
1323:.
1296:.
1270:.
1244:.
1215:.
1190:.
1115:(
1090:(
1072:(
979:(
933:(
911:(
886:(
830:(
808:(
674:(
638:|
617:(
597:(
577:(
531:(
464:(
404:(
331:(
288:(
207:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.