Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/A More Perfect Union

775:(the two major papers in the U.S.) are about that speech (and several columnists in both papers weigh in on it as well). In fact it will probably be the topic of editorials in most papers in the U.S. and indeed even in some other parts of the world. There has been an enormous outpouring of commentary all over the blogosphere, and every respectable news publication will discuss this in detail in the next day and indeed beyond (A Google News search for "Obama" and "A More Perfect Union" reveals upwards of 2,000 news stories). In short, the topic has already received (and indeed will receive much more) significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore is notable. Many are already comparing this to speeches by Kennedy, FDR, and Lincoln, and I can guarantee you this speech will be discussed in history classes in the future. Our article looks to be off to a good start, and a few years from now I'd bet we'll have enough material to turn this into a featured article.-- 2903:" An African-American preacher in Georgia remarked, "I don’t see how you can be an African-American preacher and not try to figure out how to have something to say this Sunday, even though it’s Easter." It's been a couple of days and we already have some schools (many are on break now) discussing the speech. So, 64.45.236.60, this is hardly a fart in the elevator - a rather disingenuous analogy if ever I've read one - since elevator farts (even from prominent people!) generally are not discussed in university-level speech classes (at least not where I went to school). Notability has already been demonstrated and this is almost certainly headed for a keep as it is, but I figured I'd provide a bit more evidence anyway. Also, just an interesting tidbit in terms of precedent even though "otherstuffexists" is not necessarily a valid argument, note that we have an article on 3850:

acting as any publicty outlet for any certain individual. I believe that most of time the argument is about this main issue of 'Is Knowledge (XXG) is being used for publicity?' and NOT an argument about whether it is just an 'Encyclopedia of important events or topics occuring or occured'. I am sure once the presidential race is over, there would be no such argument of the deletion of this article whatsoever, and people discussing about this speech would be doing so solely because of its content, its linguistic delivery, and other reasons solely for historical and educational reasons. Most of the times people are forgotten but what they have done or said makes them remembered. Today there are 350 million google hits for the 'I Have a Dream' speech

3501:"Barack Obama speech" and hit go. Three clicks later, I was at the article we are debating. I loved this speech as did many, but where would I find out if he actually wrote it? Where else would I get a perfect snapshot of how the media received it? Where did I find this sort of info for "don't tase me bro!" and other similar flash in a pan events? Who cares if the speech is nothing next week? It surely won't be, but why does it matter? The context, the content, the speaker - all HIGHLY NOTABLE. I think we are confusing newsworthy and notable these days - in fact, I can't wait to see notable on a list of words that should be retired. Maybe it has already been on such a list? I'll check, on this website, as soon as I press save page. 3177:. The discussion below appears to present a reasonable cross section of arguments in favour of keeping for the moment and I think this is what should happen. I personally think this notability will be long lasting but that's not the point. I think it is in the interest of Knowledge (XXG) to act in favour of "potential historical significance". It is definitely NOT in the interest of Knowledge (XXG) to be accused of racist/political censorship. Imagine the BBC headlines "Racist Wikipolitics deletes article on Obama's race unification speech". As an aside, maybe there is some precedent : are there other recent (ie last 12 months) examples of speeches that have had their own entries almost immediately after delivery? 2283:- I believe this should be merged with Obama's campaign article. The fact of the matter is, it's a part of a presidential campaign. To compare it to other notable speeches such as "I Have a Dream" is inappropriate and diminishes their significance. There have been many speeches made by presidential candidates in the past. This is just another. Nevertheless, if, after several weeks, it becomes apparent that this speech is significant both to his campaign and to history, then it should be made into it's own article. But currently this is not yet the apparent case, and therefore should be merged with Obama's campaign article. 2927:

should, then Obama's speech should then be noted as the impetus of said movement. However, comparing a random professor at one of the random thousands of universities as considering introducing it into a discussion group in one of his classes with MLK's "I have a Dream" speech, with hundreds of thousands in attendance, cheapens Martin Luther King's legacy. In the meantime, I think this should be worked into the Obama 2008 campaign page. Otherwise political supporters for Clinton and McCain will be able to accuse Knowledge (XXG) of bias in not publishing their own campaign speeches.

3868:. My argument is that I implore Knowledge (XXG) users to please let go of this dilemna and constant debate of trying to keep Knowledge (XXG) non publicity and solely information, because by deleting articles some Knowledge (XXG) editors find is adding publicty to one person named Barack Obama, they are also deleting something which is so much potentially informational for many other billions of people who just want information on this particular speech. I say let the people decide how they filter their information, because the election only objectively affects 300 million Americans 4493:. I agree that we don't want to predict how significant the speech will be in the future, and especially not to attempt to sway the significance through undue elaboration, but right now as it stands there are many well-known, respected and mainstream political commentators that are referring to this speech in terms of considerable expectation of future significance that easily warrants notability for an article in Knowledge (XXG). It is notable not because we think it is notable, but because enough members of the mainstream political landscape have publicly considered it notable. 4539:- per many above. Remy B's comment summarizes the issue nicely. I would like to add that, as a serious student of US history, and based on more than four decades of close observation of the political scene in the United States, I simply do not recall any other occasion where a speech delivered by a presidential candidate in the course of a political campaign has elicited such a response in terms of the breadth and intensity of media coverage and the pronouncements of seasoned commentators, many of whom drew comparisons with some of the great oratorical events in American history. 446:

probably too early for me to create the article, but I believe that over time, this speech is going to be a landmark for not only Obama's presidential campaign, but also the state of America heading into the election even if Obama doesn't make it. We should give this article time, and you will all see why this article is well deserving of an article on Knowledge (XXG). As for Metropolitan90, this is the official title of the speech. It is referred to as this title on his official website listing, as well as all of the media coverage. I mean, come on, if an article like "

4113:

within the Obama campaign article. Just as there need be an Obama campaign endorsements article and an Obama campaign positions article, there needs to be this one. Although this article should eventually come to give a broadened treatment of the contentious issues concerning race in America as it relates to Obama's campaign, certainly Obama's speech, along with all the pro-Obama commentary (regarding Obama's success via the speech) as well as all the anti-Obama commentary (about his failures to address certain issues within it) all pass the threshhold of notability. --

4040:

President of the US. Also, as a minority, I certainly think that it is important as he IS a Presidential candidate, and he is speaking directly on matters important to some. I think that, like myself, many other minorities are sort of poring over this thing. But in the larger context, I think people in general have been poring over it...It's what drew me to google the speech, and the Wiki page popped up on the 2nd page of results -btw, anyone wanna venture to explain how you do that cool little signy thing that leaves your date, time, IP address, etc?

1166:- I'm going to be frank here, and risk crossing the AGF line. The nominator's "list of articles I have proposed for deletion" shows very strong political tendencies, and I am not convinced of the good faith of this nomination. This speech is a major campaign event, and its contents and media prominence alone are a matter of historical precedent and importance. It has already received more coverage than any American political speech since, well, Obama's 2004 keynote address. I can't think of any good reason to delete the article - just political ones. 1232:

commenting on the historic nature of this speech think. Those are reliable sources (a number of which are already cited in the article) and we base our decision on whether to keep this or not on the depth of coverage in those sources (which is incredibly extensive) not on the fact that a few editors here think this was just "some speech." They are entitled to that opinion, but it has no bearing on this discussion, which should revolve solely around the question of notability as described in our notability guidelines.--

3440:. This is my first contribution to an AfD page (and one of my first contributions to WP), but I have tried to educate myself on WP's policies and this article, and I do not believe this article should be deleted. This may not be a valid argument, but I came to WP this morning and typed in "a more perfect union" and it was helpful to find this article in educating myself on this speech. I believe that it is in the best interest of all wikipedia users that his article remain on it's own as it is quite notable. 1213:. This isn't some stump speech - this is a major and prominent address on race, given in terms of rare frankness, at a major turning point in a historic presidential campaign. My only concern here is a "crystal ball" violation, wherein we attribute historical prominence to a speech before history has passed judgment - but in this case, I think we are well served by having an article right now, and will almost certainly continue to be well served in the future. 856:. This is a speech that will transcend the presidential campaign that Obama is currently engaged in. The parts about the Rev. Wright might not be notable, and if the speech were focused on that controversy exclusively, I would support deletion. But the scope of Obama's speech expands beyond the controversy to capture a snapshot of race relations as they are today. This one will be remembered and looked back upon in the months and years ahead. - 2939:

That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. No one is saying this speech is as important as "I Have A Dream." I did not compare this speech to MLK's and thus cheapen MLK's legacy (what a strange thing to say). Those arguing for keep are simply saying it is a notable speech by our notability guidelines. References to Lincoln and Dr. King have no real bearing on this discussion so let's please stay focused on the issue of notability for

3973:, but I will!) point out in the interests of historical accuracy that Nixon was not running for president in 1952, the year of the "Checkers speech." The objective of the speech was to address accusations about financial impropriety and thus prevent Ike Eisenhower from removing him from the GOP ticket. In that regard Nixon was successful, and of course he served two terms as VP before losing to JFK in 1960.-- 4755:

and still thinks this speech was not notable (reaction from everyone in the country including politicians, academics, and religious leaders, millions of YouTube hits, "clinches" the critical Richardson nomination, discussed in university classes, talked about in Easter sermons in black churches, and all this covered by literally hundreds of secondary sources - we're well past the notability bar here.)--

1183:- The media flares up over any new development in the Clinton-Obama race, inventing notability where there is none. Would we create an article for Hillary's "tears", which was also temporarily notable? When it comes down to it, it's just some politician's speech among countless others by countless other politicians, albeit moving. This is Obama's response to a controversy, not 272:(more discussion from media and pundits, response from academics and religious leaders, more than double the number of citations from reliable sources, etc.). Not trying to twist any arms here, but delete voters who commented soon after this was listed for AfD might want to take another look at the article and see if they still think it warrants deletion.-- 1959:-- This page makes no sense. The speech is historic; in fact, I went to Knowledge (XXG) to find a link to the text of the speech to add onto my own website. (However, I am boggled by the fact that the only method provided is to directly edit this 30KB document of prior comments !! Tried other links, such as Talk and they were blind alleys.) 3027:- which relates to a speech he made in Fayatteville. It links to 1194 news articles relating to this and so one could no doubt claim that there is enough sources to write an article about that speech too. And I suppose there will be more speeches to come - he makes at least one a day, right? What's needed to justify an article is 4142:. The large number of media opinions/analyses/etc talking about the speech give us enough to work with. This isn't primarily about whether it will be considered a major event or a footnote in a few decades (too early to say about that), but it is first and foremost about whether there are enough sources to produce a good article. 4713:. I was going to vote delete per "Knowledge (XXG) is not news", but now that I've seen how low the de facto threshold for inclusion of speeches and even minor incidents involving politicians (as per the "Bush pretzel incident" and the "not Kennedy" articles mentioned above), I'm inclined to keep. Some will say this goes against 103:. There is no real reason to delete. Article violates no policy, and is well sourced. Proper title so no merge. Stand alone so no redirect. Consensus has been reached thus far. No reason to prolong. Also, so this is 100% clear, and no one feels its necessary to provoke argument over this close, I will cite, albeit, and essay. 4310:- whilst the speech itself is recieving considerable press coverage, it has yet to receive sufficient independent analysis of any social impact, and as such doesn't assert the notability of, for example, Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. The material may warrant inclusion, but at this stage, probably simply within 4035:. This speech is already being absorbed by academia. Some insist on its future historicity, and while I'm not sure that those declarations alone make it worthy of an article, I think that when considered with the immediate critical embrace in the media and warm reception from the majority of journalists, 4191:

Second, the speech will likely become a historical noteworthy, regardless of the outcome of the present US election cycle. Only time will be able to prove this, but deleting this speech as un-notable at this time is premature; this speech shows all the potential of being an important, historical address.

2938:

If speeches by McCain and Clinton get this level of coverage and discussion then we should by all means have articles on them, but so far this has not happened. And this is not about MLK so I don't know why people keep bringing that up. Who here has said this is the "second coming" of MLK or Lincoln?

1485:

this subject has been the center of non-trivial coverage from hundreds of major and minor media sources around the world. Not only has this coveraged been focused on the event itself, but its effects on a major presidential campaign and a major subject of division in America. Not only that, but the

561:

The notability guidelines clearly state that a short burst of news coverage does not automatically confer notability. In the context of a nearly two year long political campaign, it is likely that this speech will be regarded as little more than a footnote or "flavor of the day" news coverage in the

445:

You say this isn't notable? Turn on the TV! Google Obama in the news category. People all over are talking about this. It's all over the news. It's all over the Internet. I went to the grocery store and saw cashiers and customers talking about it. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SPEECH. Again, yes I know it was

4543:

I also want to address another issue which has been raised by a few people: the notion that this is "merely" a US-centric subject, and thus not worthy of an article in Knowledge (XXG). What rubbish. Apparently, the fact that Mr. Obama's campaign is of tremendous (I dare say, unprecented) interest to

3999:

From the massive amounts of attention it is garnering from the media and general populace alike, it seems clear that this speech has crossed the notability threshold. Deleting the article first pending a long-term judgement of notability would deprive it of any current editing interest, and it would

3500:

I don't contribute much but I have to say this, one of Knowledge (XXG)'s strengths is that it is now chronicling events as they happen. I am in London, and don't even have basic cable. I read about the speech, watched the speech, and the very next thing I did was go to Knowledge (XXG). I typed in

2993:

I would have no problem if this was referenced as part of Barack Obama's Racial Debate or Racial Component of 2008 Election or something similar. However, keep in mind that the speech you referenced with Mitt Romney was put in context of the broader issue of Mormon acceptance as Christianity within

2926:

A politician bringing up the racial debate is not the second coming of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. Nor is it the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, despite how his campaign decided to name his speech. If the broader debate amongst the citizenry actually happens, and I think it

2752:

Right now no one can tell how historically significant this speech will become -- it depends on whether it brings about real change, and on how elections turn out. Few people recall the speeches of Adlai E. Stevenson, although they may have seemed momentous at the time. It might seem like a shame to

2156:

Celarnor, just so this issue is clear to all of us invited to discuss on the linked article itself, is updating Knowledge (XXG) from the workplace against Knowledge (XXG) guidelines? Because I did not see that in my last review of the official guidelines. And I understand from your profile you did

1718:

seems suspiciously like a desperate grab at trying to come up with something to delete this under. The candidate has much better ways to advertise himself politically. Also, apart from that, AfDs are not for deletions because of the content of an article unless it is unsourced negative information

4754:

Actually a G-news search for "Obama" and "speech" reveals several hundred hits just for today. It seems about half of the stories on the first page of hits are substantively about the speech in some way. But at this point I don't know what to say to someone who reads the article in its current form

4655:

with thanks to Cgingold for doing the legwork above. This is a no-brainer. The speech is notable by any standard, discussed across a broad swath of media worldwide, attracting a great deal of attention on and off Knowledge (XXG). And for the record, I do not think the decision to keep this article

3104:

Why should we have to wait to give clearly notable material coverage? I can't link to it at the moment because it hasn't shown up on Google Scholar yet, but my school's journal search subscription already lists TWO scholarly articles regarding the speech by political science professors. Why throw

2839:

The arguments over this have already spun into an extension of the political debate itself. A certain user on this discussion page exemplifies for all that good faith arguments for deletion will turn into accusatory rhetoric that belongs in the political process itself, not Knowledge (XXG). I count

2467:

I beg to differ muchly. The size of the massive orgy of nuclear warfare is irrelevant. I read the above section I cited as saying "everyone's talking about it now does not guarantee notability". I again argue that just because some talking head has evoked the civil rights movement, does not make

2438:

says it all: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability". The wealth of response to this speech is only characteristic of the media who hyperbolizes everything for ratings and buzz. People, you know how news

2185:

and anonymous editing. Most people don't like, just randomly start editing AfD's as their first edits, which kind of suggests that the person knows their way around WP. If the person is a regular contributor, why didn't he log in? Has he/she already !voted and trying to pad the page? Maybe not,

1420:

is a desperate grasp at finding something to delete this under. As a presidential candidate, he has far more effective ways of getting his extremely notable speech to people other than sites that try to get it deleted simply because they have it on their site and don't believe it should be there.

823:

Linking to a policy without comment is not much of a comment. My discussion of the future is obviously not the rationale for why I think this should be kept, it was an additional thought I added at the end which I think is worthy of consideration though not the reason this is a keeper. As I clearly

624:

The absence of potential articles is no reason in itself to delete an existing article. Also, I believe the intention behind "not news" is to prevent every petty theft, rain shower, and campaign stop from getting its own article just because it was briefly mentioned in local or national media. It

610:

Clinton's tears were not notable. For one thing, "she cried after a momentous primary/caucus" IS notable; however, it doesn't deserve it's own article unless a vast amount of analysis shows up around it enough to give it substantial prose beyond what appears in her campaign page. That is the case

4684:

still too early to tell if this speech will reach the status of "legendary" (my personal guess is that it depends on whether or not Obama is eventually elected president), but the fact that it marks the introduction of race-related issues into the 2008 campaign does contribute to its significance.

2898:

article in the New York Times about responses to the Obama speech (which is now the top You Tube video apparently, for whatever that's worth). A relevant passage reads "Religious groups and academic bodies, already receptive to Mr. Obama’s plea for such a dialogue , seemed especially enthusiastic.

2791:

Tremendous public interest in the speech guarantees that this article will see a lot of traffic, and the afd notice is a little embarrassing, although that's probably not a reason to remove it. While it is possible that the speech might come to be known under a different name, that is a case for a

2453:

That's what it says, but I think you're missing the intent. It's not a burst; it's more like a massive nuclear explosion of epic proportions. The only thing WP has to operate off is the news, and the news is saying that it is comparable to speeches given during the civil rights movement. That's

2401:

Only the glaring systematic bias of our US-centric contributors would allow keeping this in clear violation of Not News. We don't write history here, we reflect it. If this is deemed notable in the longer term, then we can certainly justify having an article about it. But for the moment, this is a

2111:

Normally, I don't, but considering that his entire body of edits is criticisim and advocating removal of material from Knowledge (XXG), one has to wonder. In any case, this argument isn't a 'we should delete this' argument. It's a 'we should have more on other notable speeches as well' argument.

1383:

I think that's an anomaly. My newspaper has the entire speech printed, plus pages of commentary. The official video has already gotten over one million hits on YouTube. Frankly, Knowledge (XXG) is going to look silly for having a deletion template on the article while the speech is getting so much

3749:

With a large number of editorials written about the speech, and the amount - and kind - of news coverage it got, and the fact Richardson listed as a reason for endorsing Obama, I'll say this speech is indeed notable and not a news event. I would not be shocked to hear about this speech, or future

1231:

and no delete commenter has been able to argue otherwise. Loodog may think "it's just some politician's speech among countless others by countless other politicians," but that is not at all what dozens and dozens of news articles, politicians, religious leaders, and political commentators who are

422:

Although most people do not know the speech by its title, it has still received an incredible amount of news attention, nonetheless. It is very likely, when looking at the very favorable news coverage, that the speech will have a lasting impact, especially if Barack Obama receives the nomination.

368:

Well, I know it because it was being discussed on CNN as such while I was in the dining commons here on campus, the pdf available on our school's Promethus system is "amoreperfectunion-obama.pdf" with bold text at the top, there was a debate about it in the bookstore and library when I went to go

4362:

the speech's notability was not independent of the campaign; if it was just received and analyzed as a campaign speech, it's place would be on that page. However, it has notability independent of the campaign, as it has analysis and coverage beyond the campaign itself, analyzing the speech as a

4190:

I believe that this speech is notable enough to qualify a wikipedia entry on two grounds. First, it is an important current events story. Currently, thousands of published news articles are discussing this speech. On youtube, the speech has been viewed more 3 million times, in less than a week.

4112:

WP would be remiss not to extend its coverage to both the underlying issues, Obama's speech, and the "pro" and "anti" commentary. The underlying issues---essentially Obama and race---Obama's speech, and the extensive commentaries and political analyses require too detailed of coverage to confine

3385:

It's 'not' objective, which is the problem. People are letting partisan politics get in the way of improving Knowledge (XXG). I'll grant you that the speech is part of his campaign, naturally, and it deserves mention and inclusion on the relevant page as such. However, as a speech--that is, a

4376:

To me, the majority of the sources, and indeed an entire section of the article, deal with the impact of the speech on voters and in the context of the election that is being fought, meaning it only adds notability to the campaign at the moment. As such, it is notable on in connection with the

3849:

I feel right now the true impact of this speech is not yet realized because it is overshadowed by the currently larger issue related to the speaker that is, the presidential campaign and I feel that the Knowledge (XXG) 'psychology' is too eager, or even paranoid at times to distance itself from

3697:

Yes, as Celarnor says, there are only two days of traffic data and the second shows nearly 3,000 views. I'm not really trying to convince the "flash in the pan" argument editors of anything, I'm just trying to point out that there has clearly been significant interest in the article. It's not a

3606:

a little over 9,000 times that same day. Most articles are viewed far, far less than that - anything over a thousand in a day is pretty significant I would say. Though I'm not going on any policy here (those arguments have already been amply provided), the fact that this article got 4,000 views

3390:

of it's relevance to the campaign. To include that kind of information in an unrelated article (i.e, the page on his campaign) would diminish the significance of both. Wiki is not paper, we can have as many articles as we want, and we should cover all topics deserving of coverage as deeply as

4332:

By what notability standards in our policies is a speech, or anything else, required to have received "sufficient independent analysis of any social impact?" And how is the fact that this speech is not as notable as "I Have A Dream" relevant to whether or not we keep it? We do not have special

4039:

to prognostications of its high standing in historical contexts, it most certainly deserves a Knowledge (XXG) article. It's Knowledge (XXG). I mean Knowledge (XXG) has an article on "felching." Also, I heard Billy Bob Richardson say today that it strongly influenced him to endorse Obama for

4377:

presidential campaign itself, and until it has received more in depth coverage of a wider impact, I can't see how it warrants an article on its own. That should not preclude its creation at a later date if it influences policy or becomes the subject of academic discussion at some later date.

2482:

Several talking heads, with noted, established and reputable journalistic careers with worldwide and national syndication. By your logic, we should just ignore reliable sources altogether, since everything they say can just be "what they say when they want us to pay attention", and you can't

2319:

arguement is just as tied to the time factor as everything else, since we can't know yet whether or not this is going to be notable. I've got a feeling that this is something people are going to search for in the next few days, so it would be nice to keep it up for a while before we render a

3355:

It did; there's plenty of material about the speech itself rather than just it's delivery as part of the campaign; however, it seems like some people just don't want to hear that for some reason. Personally, I think politics should be kept out of deletion discussions; we are supposed to be

4017:

Anyone with a trained political eye will understand that this speach is going to be historic whether Barack Obama wins the Presidential electino or not. It will be looked back on for generations, and I say that not as an Obama supporter but as a follower and scholar of American politics.

766:

since notability is the only important question here. That guideline says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I believe this article easily passes that bar. The lead editorial in today's

2770:

for all the good reasons already mentioned. If this speech is all but foggotten six months from now, it is easy enough to delete it then... though it is unlikely. The speech addresses a fundamental issue, and it most certainly will make a lasting impact on the American society.

1278:-Widely considered the most important speech of a historically significant campaign. Notability is well-established. That it feels awkward to title the article based on the title of the speech, that's only bc the article already does a good job of contextualizing the event. 951:. It is certainly immediately notable, and I've heard many a commentator say they expect it to be memorable in the years to come. Until we're better able to determine that, we should at least give the article a chance to mature and develop before making premature judgments. -- 4808:

This is not just one of the most notable speeches in recent political history, but almost certainly the most-discussed one, as evident from the massive media coverage that has trumped pretty much every other speech given during the primaries combined. -- A not-signed-in

1331:

You seem to have been urging a greater degree of coverage of the Wright issue in the Obama article. Given the extent to which that article has already been given over to the Wright issue, it makes sense to have a separate page here in order to avoid bloat, no?

3090:". We get bombarded with lots of coverage of the primaries and campaigns every day but it is just a routine media circus. It would be a good policy to confine coverage of such campaigns to WikiNews and only create articles here when they are over and decided. 1295:

This is a well-written article about a major political speech that is still having repercussions. There is clearly too much material to reasonably merge. Mr. IP also brings up a serious issue which is made all the more troubling given the nominator's userpage.

1636:, Speedy merge isn't an option unless it's a bad faith nomination (which it could be; see others above me) and it is abundantly obvious that it belongs within another article and no one disagrees with you. In this case, most everyone disagrees with you. 4089:- possibly revisit in 6 months, but this speech has received much attention nationally and internationally. Deletion would be premature. c'mon Tay Zonoday rates to get a page on his song (not released, but only a youtube phenom, mind you) Chocolate rain 2692:

What would you propose, and how is the title an issue? The title is official. Maybe a disambig line at the top to the Constitution would be useful, but I don't see why the title should be changed now that we've established this is the official title.

3373:

of Obama's campaign for President of the United States. And then ask yourself if he delivered it two years ago, when he had stated he was not running for the highest elected office in the country, if it would have received the attention it did. It's

454:" have their own Knowledge (XXG) articles, why is this being considered to be deleted? This is a lot more interesting, historic, and relevant than Mel Gibson and a one-time drinking binge and a burned-out soccer player that is married to a Spice Girl. 2994:

the Republican electorate, not from the mouth of Mitt Romney's political handlers, as this speech clearly is. I think the issue I most strenously object to is Knowledge (XXG) becoming the mouthpiece of a political campaign, regardless the candidate.

3913:. Secondary sources are a barometer of notability, but right now its content for Wikinews. In November, or possible sooner, if the speech has had some kind of massive effect, then it could be recreated. Otherwise, the notability we're conferring is 1987:, I thought about this one and it does seem that this speech will stay notable throughout the rest of the presidential election, and probably beyond. Especially if this does end up becoming the major turning point for the Obama campaign. (NOTE:I do 4689:

shows that the speech has received more attention, sparked more debate, and caused more analysis by scholars at universities, than the typical news story which would fall under "WP:NOTNEWS". Anyhow, this speech was far deeper than the quick

2125:

How can you tell? IPs are often dynamic, and he could have thousands of edits under some other IP. At best you could say that he only commented on articles related to this subject during a pretty short timespan. Please assume good faith. -

4391:

The majority of the sources? What does that have to do with anything? Just because the majority of sources deal with one aspect of something doesn't mean we should ignore other aspects of it. That is simply inane. Sources such as the

1713:

It is notable because it has garnered wide media attention, not because of a given person's political leanings. I'm not even a member of a political party; heck, I didn't vote in our primaries because my party didn't front a candidate.

3391:

possible; the deletion of this page would marginalize the coverage that the speech has received as a speech and not just as part of his campaign. I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion that people seem to have about this.

4656:

should be informed in any way by whether individuals agree with the speech, think it was well delivered, love or hate Obama. All that counts is its notability and value to our readers, and (although this is not a definitive tool) the

3698:

rationale for keeping, I just thought it was worth pointing out. I'm sure in a few weeks there will only be a few hundred hits a day at best as is the case with the majority of our articles (which have that or far, far fewer hits).--

3859:, suggesting that many people especially in non-American countries perhaps would know the speech but not even knowing who said it in the first place. By contrast there are only 1 million hits for 'A More Perfect Union Barack Obama' 2568:^^^Just came here to say this. Trying to figure out the historical importance of a speech that happened yesterday is basically trying to tell the future. If no one cares about it in six months (unlikely imo) we can delete it then. 4409:

Well, not so much inane, as a figure of speech. All the ones I saw indicated it was all in the context of the election, though I'll happily concede I may have missed one. I'll have a look at the linked source and comment again.

2788:. This speech, since the time of its delivery, has been the principle item of discussion in the United States news since its delivery and it is even already being incorporated into academic curriculae dealing with race in America. 3340:

In all seriousness - why didn't this article start off on Obama's bio, and then migrate as it proved itself? Isn't that a normal course of action here? Seems to me that supporters are trying to build up this person's words as

2315:. This whole controversy is about whether or not it's notable yet, and both sides pretty well agree that it could be. But we don't know yet. So let's just leave it up for a week and then renominate it to test consensus. The 3942:

or a similar title. Speech as received generous amounts of non-trivial coverage, far above and beyond the typical stump speech. Even if Obama fails to win the nomination or the Presidency; a similar precedent has been set by

2840:

at least a dozen posts by this individual in this article itself. I see nothing historic about the speech other than editorials and political punditry, and neither meet the standard for references by Knowledge (XXG) guidelines.

2975:? If a speech will be written about for decades into the future by political historians, why not include it? Why not have several such speeches per U.S. election cycle, depending on the coverage they receive? Mitt Romney's 2612:

The countless sources that are available now aren't enough? I disagree that it requires anything additional to establish notability. It's 'meta-criticism' beyond the scope of the campaign should be more than sufficient now.

576:

I would say it is highly unlikely that, whatever happens in this campaign, this speech will be merely a "footnote." It is far more likely that passages from it will appear in future history textbooks, even if Obama loses the

4333:

notability standards for speeches, and you don't seem to disagree that the speech has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, which is our general standard for notability.--

3804:). It's been the subject of dozens (possibly hundreds) of newspaper articles and editorials. It may or may not go into history books (we can't predict that). But it seems likely that its notability will hold up alongside 2454:

notability if I've ever seen it. Not news is to prevent someone from creating an article about some beauty pageant that their kid participated in, citing a single local news article and declaring it valid based on that.

4544:

people in all parts of the planet has escaped the attention of these editors. So for their benefit, I would like to offer a selection of newspaper headlines (from Google news) from countries other than the US or Canada:

2416:

As I've said elsewhere, WP does not know borders. It's not a clear violation of not news; it covers the speech itself, its' analysis, and its' effects. It is not a wikinews candidate (although the delivery of it is).

900:, I agree. I hope that we can expand and focus more on the speech instead of the controversy. So far, I'm really the only one who has substantially helped to beef this article up, so it's gonna take some more effort. 3520:

See Notability guidline: ": A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", this topic obviously meets this requirement.

1398:

USA Today featured it as their cover story. My personal local newspaper covered the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War (which is today), and I suspect that story is the reason it's not on everyone's front page today.

1599:-- I haven't been following the election at all. But I heard that I am supposed to listen to the speech. And are we running out of hard drive space or something. I think we are too quick to delete articles here. -- 3459:. The speech is notable. Not only has it received extensive news and opinion coverage in the media, but is it beginning to be discussed by religious groups and is being incorporated into university classes. See 3732:. A merge means no deletion. The article shouldn't have been brought to AFD unless the nominator thinks it should be deleted. Notability is not temporary. This article doesn't look like a news report to me. -- 1460:

It's not news because there's more significance attributed to it than it's delivery alone. That is, reports ON the speech have occurred, making it more notable than reports that just RELAY the speech.

1503:- A very notable speech, highly covered in the American Media. There is absolutely no reason to delete the article, only to improve the article as it is very base compared to the speech's notability. 546:, you will find that there is no such thing as temporary notability. Once something is notable, it's notable forever. I mean, I can't really think of many more things notable than this, to be honest. 2979:

already has an article-sized chunk of text devoted to it, and he's a losing candidate—but the speech is still notable. And whether Obama wins or loses—"A More Perfect Union" will still be notable.--

926:. We don't include entries on the basis of expected notability, since there's no science to that kind of prediction. It's a bunch of news commentators trying to strike up interest in their story.-- 3481:

Article on historic speech. What's more notable than that? Wide press coverage, many reliable sources commenting on speech, creation of open debate on race, changes to college curriculm. Please....

2867:

What, every time he farts in an elevator, you want to make a Knowledge (XXG) entry? If it's so important, put it in his bio. If it THEN becomes an earth shaking even, it should be its own article.

2016:-- This is proceeding down a slippery slope, where every speech made throughout the rest of the campaign can be claimed to be historic by supporters of that politician. Remember the rule is NPOV. 1874:

is to prevent fleeting things like the news story about the woman with 12 cats who got evicted and is suing the landlord from becoming notable. It isn't intended for large-scale events like this.

352:

about the speech doesn't mention the title at all. Maybe this speech will turn out to be historically notable, and maybe this will be the title under which it becomes historically known. But its

4717:

but I maintain that reasoning by analogy is the main way of achieving consistency and since guidelines are supposed to reflect practice rather than the other way around, I'll go with analogy. --

2901:

Universities were moving to incorporate the issues Mr. Obama raised into classroom discussions and course work, and churches were trying to find ways to do the same in sermons and Bible studies.

264:. Just a quick note to point out that the article has expanded considerably (including many more assertions of notability) from when this AfD was started. At that point the article looked like 4000:

take more energy/effort/trouble to re-create the article after deletion. Even if it eventually fades with the rest of the 2008 US Presidential campaign speeches, why incur the greater costs?

3316:

This would be true if the only notable thing regarding the speech was the fact that it was delivered as part of his campaign, but it's grown beyond that; it has been the subject of analysis

1055:

event will be followed by at least some news posts. Front-page editorials in multiple national papers aren't quite the Podunk Gazette, nor is this a "short burst" by normal media standards.

2512:

Not at all. You overgeneralized. My point was to not lift information from sources regarding ideas about which the source is not likely to be neutral. Here: grandiose MLK comparisons.--

1897:

To expand on Celarnor's point, if we have a US-centric bias the solution is to add more similar articles about major speeches by major candidates in other countries, not delete this one.

311:

per nom. It is not clear that this speech is commonly known under this title, anyway, and the title has been used in other contexts as well due to its origins in the U.S. Constitution. --

2495:

flying here. In and of itself as a presidential speech, no, this is not notable. However, it has received coverage beyond it's mere delivery. It has received analysis and criticism

739:. This speech is garnering much media attention, and is important to Senator Obama's campaign. (Yeah, I basically just said "me too" to the above comment; it's a valid point though.) 110:

closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. Recommended criteria to use: (a) six or more participants have supported keeping the page;

2820:

Massive news coverage can confer notability, there's no need for some nebulous time to pass. There might be a better name for the article, but that's not an issue of notability.

1253:

Mr. IP's comparison to the Checkers speech is appropriate, I think. There is a precedent of including unique and notable campaign speeches. I would also draw comparisons to the

198: 340:

I'm in America and watching channels other than Nickelodeon and MTV, and I know the speech by its title only because I participated in this AfD. Note that the New York Times

3570:. Obviously meets notability criteria. Surprised that the article doesn't mention that a journalist on MSNBC said it was "possibly the most important speech on race since 327:

If someone in America and they have watched channels other than Nikelodeon and MTV, they know the speech by it's title. I've been bombarded with it almost constantly here.

2530:

outlets have made the MLK comparisons. An editor's individual feeling that it may be grandiose doesn't matter; it's what is being reported by a considerable amount of the

404:"A More Perfect Union". I think eventually more news outlets will pick up on that, especially after they look it up on Knowledge (XXG) and see that we've called it that. -- 3863: 2792:

future move, rather than a current delete. And I suppose it's possible that dramatic and unforeseen events may render the speech forgotten within a week, but since we

768: 1865:. You can't say it will be less notable later, since you don't know that. It is, however, notable now, judging by the massive amount of media coverage and analysis. 3261: 1130:

has not been rescinded. Probably far too soon to say whether this is of any significance or importance. Could well prove to be just another boring campaign speech.

1425:, and it's already become something more than just a speech. Commentators are analyzing it to death, so it's more than just the speech in and of itself. Cheers. 2217:

as a rangepool, not as an IP linked to a single room within a building. Also, it's not regular practice for US government domains to rotate their internal IPs.

3293:

Speech meets notability requirements for media coverage and newspapers, not for encyclopeadia coverage. This article's inclusion makes wikipedia look more like

2711:

This appears to be a "watershed moment" in the Obama campaign and the 2008 Presidential campaign. We're not a news site, but some news is instant history. <

3158:- It's notable, alright. Many news organization in the US and around the world reported on it. Title might need to be changed though. But that's easy enough. 2598:

And in the same paragraph, read "However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future."--

720:, etc... it seems quite unlikely that this won't be among the most important moments of the campaign, which seems like it should be suitable for notability. 1654:

I'm on the other side of the atlantic, and I never even heard of this. Perhaps it appears notable depending on your politics and that is why there are two

3797: 2204:

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but your whois provides no indication that the IP is either static or dynamic. You can't tell them apart based on that. -

3002:- few speeches in the last few decades have been as widely discussed or viewed, or read, as this one has been and I believe it will have a lasting impact. 3939: 2367:

The question is, will it be compared to great speeches a year from now, or is it just people writing the news not coming up with any better stories. -

346:

The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Senator Barack Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia, as provided by his presidential campaign.

968:

What commentator would say that what he's talking about only has a temporary window of interest? The news is not an objective judge of notability.--

4513: 4311: 3729: 2081:- Also, the anonuser's only contributions have been criticisms of this article. I hardly think it's appropriate for him/her to be discussing NPOV. 242:. Randi Rhodes on Air America thinks this speech might be one for the history books. Granted, such judgments are premature, but the deletion of the 209: 165: 160: 1719:

about a living person. For things with content that needs to be fixed, there are numerous tags that can be applied to the article. Or you can be

3951:--a speech which brought about a temporary reversal of Nixon's political fortunes, but did not win him the White House (at least not that year).-- 169: 3800:. On that basis it qualifies for notability as an internet meme alone (and is more notable than many other such Wiki articles on viral videos in 1531:

for notability? Because it seems obvious that it does, and the only real argument for deletion is that it does not. Could you please elaborate?--

1365:. My newspaper just has the speech as a minor aside in the daily campaign coverage - secondary to the rejection of Hillary's result in Florida. 3415:, with removal of certain data that makes it Crystal Ball material. It was a very relevant speech it seems. If not keep, then at least merge. -- 2559: 487:

read in "respectable" newspapers. These observations do not mean that I nor any reasonable person would ever find their comments adding weight

443:

I was very hesitant to create an article for this speech, but I also feel that this a very significant speech that needs to be chronicled in WP.

2186:

but unfortunately, it's something that has to at least be considered. Of course, it may just be that this is the person's first contribution.

4236:

that his endorsement was swayed by this speech further underlines the influential nature of this speech. It is definitely premature to delete.

1936:

the US in the first place? Are we to believe that his speech should cover other countries? He's not campaigning in other countries. Just one.

152: 3653:

In fact, it makes it appear even more like a flash in the pan since the traffic has disappeared from the chart for the most recent weeks...

2483:

objectively judge what articles from source foo aren't reliable and what articles from source foo are reliable. That's why we consider the

4207: 3369:

This discussion is very much everything else, but to accuse it of being objective is laughable. Please explain how this speech is somehow

2856: 2173: 521: 370: 2032: 4765: 4393: 4343: 4242:

per Nightstallion. Also I point out that the nom has a user page that boasts of trying to get articles on left-wing subjects deleted.

3983: 3892:. Published sources are the sole barometer of notability, and they cover the speech in-depth. Thus, we must acknowledge it's notable. 3708: 3621: 3193: 3007: 2953: 2917: 2883: 2651: 1541: 1486:

amount of relevant and verifiable information with regard to the speech means it could not be fully included in any existing article.

1242: 838: 785: 587: 282: 2526:

The sources are as neutral as reasonably possible. The consensus of the sources together is what should be considered reliable, and

17: 3584: 2753:

lose what's been written already, but all of this can be regenerated as needed in the future, and probably with better perspective.

423:

Many in the news media are covering it as if it is a notable event, thus the article should be kept until it is proven otherwise. --

4459: 4691: 3265: 2245:: Is the title official? If not, I would try to find a more neutral sounding title or merge until it does prove to be the title. 341: 380: 3539: 3253: 1974: 2320:

decision (also, the inclusionist in me is rearing its head). Chill, wait, and we'll see what happens. I mean, it's not like

4442: 3277: 3235: 2336: 2067: 1702: 1581: 1011: 349: 3796:. In three days, the speech has been seen 2.5 million times on YouTube under this title and discussed on thousands of blogs 3860: 3857: 3003: 2724: 2680: 2298: 1658:

opinions being voiced here. For me, and I've no axe to grind either way, the closing admin should pay close attention to

1099: 772: 1551: 596:

Hillary's "tears" were temporarily notable. They get no article. So much of political news in particular is fleeting.--

344:

of the speech is titled "Barack Obama's Speech on Race", not "A More Perfect Union", and the introductory sentence says:

216:

a news source, and it is relatively likely the notability surrounding this speech is only temporary. The page should be

4455: 4005: 3269: 2157:

not start hardcore Wiki editing until after Spring Break 2008 (6 weeks ago?) so your understanding would be appreciated.

4847: 4714: 3602:

this article was viewed over 4,000 times on March 19th. Just as a point of comparison, the Hillary Clinton article was

36: 3423: 3378:

because he may very well be the next President, hence it belongs in his Presidential campaign area, until it sparks a

2742: 208:

I do not believe this speech is notable enough to warrant its own page. The relevant material could be merged into

4832: 4813: 4796: 4769: 4745: 4726: 4703: 4672: 4646: 4529: 4502: 4483: 4471: 4446: 4419: 4404: 4386: 4371: 4347: 4323: 4298: 4270: 4251: 4224: 4183: 4170: 4151: 4132: 4102: 4077: 4051: 4027: 4009: 3987: 3960: 3926: 3905: 3880: 3841: 3788: 3759: 3741: 3712: 3678: 3662: 3645: 3625: 3589: 3562: 3530: 3510: 3490: 3471: 3449: 3430: 3399: 3364: 3350: 3328: 3310: 3281: 3239: 3214: 3167: 3150: 3133: 3113: 3099: 3081: 3064: 3040: 3011: 2988: 2957: 2921: 2831: 2810: 2780: 2762: 2744: 2728: 2701: 2687: 2621: 2607: 2593: 2577: 2542: 2521: 2507: 2477: 2462: 2448: 2425: 2411: 2389: 2371: 2362: 2341: 2302: 2273: 2254: 2225: 2208: 2194: 2181:

No, of course there's nothing wrong with that. However, this is a controversial issue, and we have to think about

2151: 2130: 2120: 2106: 2089: 2073: 2006: 1978: 1945: 1941: 1906: 1889: 1850: 1804: 1783: 1763: 1745: 1731: 1708: 1671: 1644: 1625: 1608: 1587: 1545: 1512: 1495: 1469: 1451: 1433: 1408: 1404: 1393: 1374: 1341: 1322: 1305: 1287: 1266: 1262: 1246: 1222: 1196: 1175: 1158: 1154: 1137: 1119: 1106: 1070: 1042: 1017: 977: 960: 956: 935: 917: 892: 842: 810: 789: 748: 729: 700: 681: 648: 644: 634: 619: 605: 591: 571: 554: 532: 504: 475: 430: 413: 409: 391: 363: 335: 318: 302: 286: 255: 228: 128: 124: 70: 57: 4686: 4637:

Obviously there have been many more articles besides these. In short, the entire world took note of this speech.

4438: 3837: 3829: 3273: 3231: 2904: 156: 4846:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

4203: 3956: 3486: 3095: 3060: 3036: 2976: 1999: 1370: 1038: 360: 315: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3163: 2852: 2169: 1679: 1558: 991:- and this article satisfies it with aplomb. Absolutely no reason to delete. The references speak for itself. 4001: 3205:

Yes, because all the arguments on the talk page say "No, Obama's too black for his speeches to be notable."--

2895: 2028: 717: 713: 4128: 4098: 3801: 3346: 3189: 2647: 1318: 1134: 447: 4195: 3854: 3181: 3070: 2871: 2844: 2639: 2286: 2161: 2020: 1962: 1066: 4761: 4339: 3979: 3922: 3704: 3617: 3416: 3146: 2949: 2913: 2879: 2737: 2349:: This speech is already being compared by many commentators to some of the great speeches in US history ( 1537: 1238: 834: 781: 583: 278: 246:

article is also more premature. Let's give it a few weeks and see if the speech makes a lasting impact. --

4736:

has stopped putting this in headlines and moved onto something Hillary did. That's how the news works.--

4199: 3482: 2848: 2165: 1633: 238:. Several commentators, including Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, have compared it to Martin Luther King Jr.'s 4462:

comparing it to Lincoln and FDR's inaugural addresses, as well as Kennedy's 1960 speech on religion. --

3876: 3809: 3580: 3506: 3141:. Time will tell if it's a truly notable speech, but as for now, that certainly seems to be the case. 2377: 2250: 2024: 1937: 1621: 1508: 1400: 1258: 1150: 952: 744: 640: 405: 120: 3851: 3185: 2643: 2402:

political speech and not deserving of an individual article. Let's get the cart back behind the horse.

2321: 2294: 3872: 3636:

That isn't by itself that good an argument if one believes that this is a flash in the pan news item.

3502: 2199:

The editing from a workplace was not a comment about anything other than that what the IP address was.

1504: 740: 4781: 4233: 3918: 3871:, but the race-issue affects everybody on the planet, and this speech IS a key speech on that matter. 3866: 3833: 3768: 3306: 2805: 2776: 1742: 1416:

does not apply. The article can exist without putting undue political weight on the side of Obama.

1257:, since it is also regarded as a significant turning point in race relations in the United States. -- 709: 708:. There's quite a bit of metacommentary showing up on this already all over both sides of the aisle: 500: 243: 235: 148: 140: 53: 4521: 3914: 3522: 3441: 3298: 2797: 1966: 1862: 1822: 1659: 923: 798: 669: 611:

here; the speech is notable now, will continue to be so, and as an encyclopedia, it should be kept.

4828: 4698: 4525: 4415: 4382: 4319: 4266: 4166: 3952: 3805: 3737: 3526: 3445: 3159: 3091: 3056: 3032: 2048: 1970: 1683: 1617: 1562: 1366: 1034: 992: 861: 424: 357: 312: 2736:

It's well written and properly source. Very notable, it's not just some regular political speech.

2290: 1932:

I'm trying to wrap my brain around this one comment. Why would Obama's speech need to be relevant

1227:

This !vote is based on opinion, not policy. The speech is clearly notable given our guidelines at

759: 4794: 4642: 4402: 4369: 4247: 4219: 4181: 4114: 4094: 4075: 4049: 4023: 3898: 3755: 3676: 3557: 3397: 3362: 3342: 3326: 3130: 3111: 3079: 3055:. It's seems that it is the pastor's words which are memorable, not Obama's apologia for them. 2699: 2619: 2591: 2540: 2505: 2460: 2423: 2407: 2385: 2358: 2332: 2271: 2223: 2192: 2149: 2118: 2087: 2057: 1887: 1796: 1729: 1692: 1642: 1571: 1491: 1467: 1431: 1389: 1314: 1283: 1131: 1117: 1001: 911: 886: 696: 630: 617: 552: 528: 469: 427: 389: 333: 300: 2635:

Notable beyond belief. 2 million youtube its in 24 hours? Plus all the media is talking abut it.

2043:- Be mindful that this anon's comment represents his/her third contribution to wikipedia. Also, 1413: 1358: 824:

stated, the reason this should be kept is because it easily passes our notability guidelines at

488: 1877:

WP does not know borders. If it is notable and relevant somewhere, then it deserves placement.

4756: 4467: 4334: 4147: 3974: 3825: 3817: 3699: 3658: 3641: 3612: 3142: 2944: 2908: 2875: 2758: 2719: 2674: 2569: 2139:. Please assume good faith in doing so. The IP in question is not a dynamic IP. As you can 1902: 1667: 1604: 1532: 1520:- Are we to make an article for every flash in the pan?--Die4Dixie 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1301: 1254: 1233: 1093: 829: 776: 578: 567: 273: 224: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

4282: 3670:: Weeks? Please explain. It was 4.1k the 19th and 2.9k the day after, which was yesterday. 2044: 1720: 1715: 1417: 1354: 1051:

A short burst? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that policy is intended to address the fact that

1030: 1026: 988: 107: 92: 4741: 4498: 4294: 3944: 3780: 3599: 3575: 3467: 3460: 3210: 2984: 2789: 2603: 2517: 2473: 2444: 2246: 2102: 1846: 1800: 1447: 1337: 1218: 1192: 1171: 1060: 973: 931: 806: 725: 677: 601: 251: 66: 3129:— This is recieving worldwide coverage. Please keep American politics out of AfDs. Cheers, 2492: 2316: 2182: 2136: 1871: 1830: 1554: 1422: 1362: 1127: 213: 116: 96: 4810: 3948: 3869: 3821: 3302: 2772: 1210: 762:, a policy on the notability of speeches, but I think we can use the general guideline at 496: 374: 49: 3889: 2907:- a considerably more trivial element of Obama's campaign, but one which passed an AfD.-- 2531: 2350: 1527:

The question here is notability. Could you please explain how this speech does not meet

4824: 4722: 4695: 4668: 4480: 4411: 4378: 4359: 4315: 4262: 4162: 3733: 3571: 3252:

the notability bar for this particular politician's article, any thoughts on these? :

2972: 1993: 1206: 1184: 897: 857: 451: 239: 4657: 3828:. And I think we can all agree that it's more likely to appear in a history book than 2582: 2435: 2262: 1856:

We've already done that, but for the sake of consensus, I'll coalesce everything here.

1841:

If people would reply along these points, we can get each to consensus maybe faster.--

1792: 1777:. No other speech in this election cycle has had as much coverage as this one by far. 1774: 1754: 1741:

the item is not historic in any way. On top of that, it may not even play any role. -

1528: 1228: 825: 763: 543: 401: 4789: 4638: 4397: 4364: 4243: 4176: 4070: 4044: 4019: 3893: 3751: 3671: 3543: 3392: 3357: 3321: 3106: 3074: 2694: 2614: 2586: 2573: 2535: 2500: 2455: 2418: 2403: 2381: 2354: 2325: 2266: 2218: 2187: 2144: 2140: 2113: 2082: 1882: 1779: 1759: 1724: 1637: 1487: 1462: 1426: 1385: 1279: 1112: 902: 877: 692: 626: 612: 547: 524: 460: 384: 328: 295: 1662:

and the fact that a short burst of media attention does not make a speech notable.

492: 484: 4517: 4463: 4143: 3813: 3654: 3637: 3603: 2821: 2754: 2712: 2667: 2468:

it equivalent. That's what people would say when they want you to pay attention.--

1898: 1663: 1600: 1421:

It's being covered by pretty much anything that does news. The only thing left is

1313:

This is speech which, if it has any relevance at all, should be on the Obama bio --

1297: 1086: 563: 377: 220: 2311:, guys. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm really favoring the idea of 828:. Could you explain to me how it does not? That is the only thing at issue here.-- 294:: If consensus is to delete, please copy the page onto a subpage of my userspace. 186: 4737: 4494: 4290: 4093:, which I would submit, is of much less historic significance and notability. -- 4063:

overhaul in terms of the organization and presentation of its contents, though.

3773: 3463: 3206: 2980: 2599: 2513: 2469: 2440: 2098: 1842: 1443: 1333: 1214: 1188: 1167: 1056: 969: 927: 802: 721: 673: 597: 458:

I don't mean to be offensive while defensive, I'm just stating my case. Thanks.

438: 247: 62: 2558:: we can always delete it in six months if things look different from there. — 4218:

per many of the arguments above; this is obviously notable and encyclopedic. —

2368: 2205: 2143:, the IP is not dynamic. It is, in fact, static, and is someone's workplace. 2127: 1145:. See my closing rationale at the top of this page. And if possible, someone 4718: 4662: 4660:

bear that out. Deleting it would appear to be partisan, to say the least.

1753:

Knowledge (XXG) does not require any of its articles to be "historic," only

1149:

this. Time shouldnt matter when a keep is clear, and consensus is reached.

871:

Thank you everyone. I'm glad I'm not alone in this and that the article is

3856:

but only 2.3 million hits for 'I Have a Dream Martin Luther King' search,

691:. This was an incredibly important speech that deserves its own article. 639:

It's also to prevent Wikinews from being supplanted by Knowledge (XXG). --

4285:: "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is 3386:

speech as a piece of literature--it has received analysis and discussion

3294: 3023:

had that Obama speech on its front page. Today it has a different one -

1919:

Possible US-centrism and assumption of relevance in the rest of the world

1837:

Possible US-centrism and assumption of relevance in the rest of the world

1826:

being violated in assumption of relevance on the future (e.g. "historic")

3257: 625:

is not to prevent genuinely notable subjects from being written about.

212:, where it already receives substantial attention. Knowledge (XXG) is 4261:

per all the excellent arguments. Surely this is a WP:SNOW candidate.

75:

Previous non-admin close rationale below, AfD reopened per DRV request

4479:

Per Mass147. A convincing arguement in my mind that it is notable. --

3320:

of the campaign, and that makes it notable as an independent speech.

2585:. Something is either notable and will continue to be, or it isn't. 2376:

Well it is certainly a more significant speech than racist crap like

4613:

The Liberal Side of Color Blind: Obama’s Post-Affirmative Action ...

4396:

have shown that it is becoming the subject of academic discussion.

987:- The only applicable guideline here, due to the topic at hand, is 483:

I hear cashiers and customers at the grocery store also talk about

4694:" from 1988 which for some reason has become very famous as well. 4520:

article, this is not notable enough to have a page of its own. -

4289:, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause."-- 3461:

Groups Respond to Obama’s Call for National Discussion About Race

4840:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

4605:

Senator Barack Obama’s Race Speech: Reactions from the Community

4090: 2213:

Yes, you can, actually. If it was dynamic, it would be listed

1442:

It's not news because commentators are analyzing it to death?--

1810:

Maybe it'd be better to organize arguments along main points:

4823:. Clearly notable based on the many references cited above. 2097:: Don't bite the newbies. Respond on content, not editors.-- 3728:, the nominator even says the material could be merged into 2662:. If the title is an issue, the you should be discussing a 3382:

whose goal is more than simply to get a candidate elected.

3248:

Added note: If there is an urgent need to delete this, to

3048: 3020: 2971:. Who says we only include speeches of the importance of 3598:. Not exactly a keep rationale per say, but according to 348:

Note that the title is not identified as such. The NYT's

4557:

LETTER OF THE DAY - Obama race speech greatest since MLK

269: 265: 193: 182: 178: 174: 115:

Taken from Appropriate closures: bullet point three on

4043:

You put four tildes after your post, like this: ~~~~

3862:

722 thousand hits for 'Barack Obama Speech on Race'

2261:

Yes, the title is official. It is so listed on his

4573:Obama's speech on race rings true for Britain, too 3262:President Tumbles Over Girl Friend's Dirty Laundry 2313:keeping for now and checking again in a week or so 369:pick up this quarter's textbooks. It was in the 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4850:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3611:suggests to me that it might be worth keeping.-- 3270:Presidential Hopeful's College Homework Censored 3105:out so much material just because it's current? 1031:a short burst of news reports is not good enough 2894:. Another source which speaks to notability is 516:, for now, at least. What's the rush? And this 48:. No consensus exists to delete the article. 4633:Sydney Morning Herald, Australia Mar 19, 2008 3888:Obviously notable and verified with adequate 3053:Obama pastor's words ring familiar in Chicago 8: 4589:Barack Obama: "A More Perfect Union", part 2 1795:. Wonderful speach. Deserves it's own page. 4175:This AfD is over. The Emperor is here. :P 3969:Good analogy, but I must (well, not really 3767:- certainly atleast the same notability as 3266:Presidential Hopeful Commits Identity Fraud 2491:reliable. In any case, I really don't see 4597:Obama tackles America's race issue head on 3940:A More Perfect Union (Barack Obama speech) 2439:works. Don't get caught up in the hype.-- 373:with the name. The consensus of the name 4784:in the headlines after 1963. That means 4629:Together we can move beyond racial wounds 4553:Jamaica Observer, Jamaica - 15 hours ago 3865:, but 30 million hits for 'Barack Obama' 1550:Not sure if the user is aware of it, but 356:is not yet as famous as implied above. -- 4561:Jamaica Gleaner, Jamaica - Mar 21, 2008 4514:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 4312:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 3853:and 20 million for 'Martin Luther King' 3730:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 210:Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 4780:They also stopped putting things about 4059:-I will say that it needs to undergo a 1205:Speeches worthy of coverage range from 495:or its analysis by non-astrologists. -- 4091:http://en.wikipedia.org/Chocolate_Rain 3047:I see that there is a related link on 4621:Obama battles back in reverend's race 3088:may form part of a cogent argument... 2135:Thank you for your concern, I always 1126:Seems like news reporting to me, but 924:Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball 262:General comment on changes in article 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 3258:US President Who Won't Speak English 4363:speech and not as a campaign item. 3025:Obama criticizes his rivals on Iraq 1723:and fix percieved errors yourself. 3832:. This is a straightforward case. 3634:comment on article traffic comment 3254:President Forgets to Chew His Food 520:the correct title for the speech: 268:, whereas as of now it looks like 234:I think it is premature to delete 24: 4625:Sydney Morning Herald, Australia 4565:Obama speech was a Lincoln moment 3750:Obama speeches, years from now. - 4512:This should be a section in the 3301:instead of an encyclopeadia. -- 1085:. You've got to be kidding me. 4692:Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy 3540:George W. Bush pretzel incident 1561:obviously come into play here. 758:. Unfortunately we do not have 4617:Asian Week, CA - Mar 21, 2008 4609:Asian Week, CA - Mar 20, 2008 4163:The Emperor of Knowledge (XXG) 2499:and not just a campaign item. 1991:support the obama campaign) -- 1: 4806:Extremely strong pile-on keep 4581:Barack Obama Disowning racism 4569:Business Daily Africa, Kenya 2804:before rushing to delete. -- 4456:media reaction to the speech 3824:, and the other articles in 1111:You must be new to AfDs. :P 922:You used the future tense. 864:) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (EDT) 4593:Wiener Zeitung, Österreich 2583:Notability is not temporary 4867: 4833:18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4814:18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4797:22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4770:21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4746:16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4727:12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4704:12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4673:04:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4647:02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC) 4530:20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 4503:14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 4484:05:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 4472:23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4447:23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4420:16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 4405:15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 4387:11:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 4372:22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4358:Again, this would be true 4348:22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4324:22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4299:21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4271:20:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4252:19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 4225:23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4184:21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4171:19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4152:18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4133:08:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4103:06:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4078:06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4052:06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4028:05:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 4010:01:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 3988:02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC) 3961:23:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3927:22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3906:22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3890:reliable published sources 3881:20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3842:18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3789:16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3760:13:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3742:07:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3713:20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3679:16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3663:16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3646:14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3626:06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3596:Comment on article traffic 3590:06:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3563:05:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3531:04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3511:03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 3491:20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3472:19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3450:19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3431:17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3400:18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3365:17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3351:17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3329:17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3311:16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3282:17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3240:16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3230:keep. Notability bar met. 3215:16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3168:15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3151:13:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3134:08:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3114:16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3100:16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3082:16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3065:08:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3041:08:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 3012:07:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2989:06:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2958:14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2922:05:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2832:04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2811:03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2781:03:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2763:03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2745:23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2729:23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2702:22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2688:22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2622:22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2608:22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2594:22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2578:22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2562:22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2543:00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2522:23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2508:22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2478:22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2463:22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2449:21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2426:22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2412:21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2390:21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2372:21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2363:21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2342:20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2303:20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2274:20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2255:20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2226:18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2209:11:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2195:18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 2152:22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2131:21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2121:20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2107:20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2090:20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2074:20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 2007:20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1979:20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1946:21:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1907:20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1890:19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1851:19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1805:19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1784:19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1764:19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1746:11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1732:19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1709:19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1672:18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1645:19:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1626:18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1609:18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1588:18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1546:18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1513:17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1496:16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1470:22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1452:18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1434:18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1409:17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1394:17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1375:16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1342:16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1323:16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1306:15:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1288:15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1267:17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1247:17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1223:15:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1197:15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1176:15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1159:15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1138:14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1120:07:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1107:07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1071:19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1043:16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 1018:07:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 978:15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 961:07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 936:15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 918:06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 893:06:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 843:18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 811:15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 790:05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 749:06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 730:05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 701:05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 682:15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 649:18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 635:17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 620:19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 606:15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 592:05:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 572:05:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 555:05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 533:04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 505:17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 476:04:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 431:04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 414:07:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 392:07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 364:06:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 336:05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 319:04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 303:23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 287:06:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC) 256:04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 229:03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 129:08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 71:21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC) 58:02:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 3830:I Got a Crush... on Obama 2977:"Faith in America" speech 2905:I Got a Crush... on Obama 2322:there's a time limit here 544:the notability guidelines 4843:Please do not modify it. 4460:New York Times editorial 4069:What would you suggest? 3004:The Moving Finger Writes 2800:, it would be better to 1861:Knowledge (XXG) isn't a 32:Please do not modify it. 3802:Category:Internet memes 2183:single purpose accounts 491:to the "importance" of 448:Mel Gibson DUI incident 4635: 3609:the day it was created 3600:this handy little tool 3356:objective, after all. 3086:Indeed. Other stuff " 2047:is not an issue here. 1632:Apart from this being 4601:Irish Times, Ireland 4546: 3810:Chocolate City speech 2892:Comment on notability 4782:Ich bin ein berliner 4549:Obama names our pain 4439:Dance With The Devil 3769:Ich bin ein Berliner 3274:Professor marginalia 3232:Professor marginalia 244:A More Perfect Union 236:A More Perfect Union 149:A More Perfect Union 141:A More Perfect Union 3806:A Time for Choosing 2666:, not a deletion. 2489:individual articles 1818:after this election 1552:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 371:Wall Street Journal 4786:absolutely nothing 4715:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 4665: 4002:ZZninepluralZalpha 3542:. 'Nuff said. -- 4768: 4701: 4671: 4661: 4577:The Guardian, UK 4346: 4212: 4198:comment added by 3986: 3934:, and optionally 3826:Category:Speeches 3818:Pound Cake speech 3711: 3624: 3588: 3428: 3198: 3184:comment added by 2956: 2920: 2888: 2874:comment added by 2861: 2847:comment added by 2809: 2686: 2656: 2642:comment added by 2340: 2305: 2289:comment added by 2178: 2164:comment added by 2137:assume good faith 2069: 2064: 2037: 2023:comment added by 1981: 1965:comment added by 1704: 1699: 1583: 1578: 1544: 1255:Pound cake speech 1245: 1105: 1073: 1013: 1008: 915: 890: 841: 788: 590: 481:ON THE OTHER HAND 473: 456:KEEP THIS ARTICLE 285: 44:The result was 4858: 4845: 4759: 4699: 4667: 4337: 4222: 4211: 4192: 4125: 3977: 3903: 3784: 3776: 3702: 3615: 3578: 3560: 3555: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3419:Gen. S.T. Shrink 3224:Keep, keep, keep 3197: 3178: 2947: 2911: 2887: 2868: 2860: 2841: 2829: 2826: 2808: 2670: 2655: 2636: 2532:reliable sources 2330: 2284: 2177: 2158: 2068: 2062: 2058: 2052: 2036: 2017: 2005: 2002: 1996: 1960: 1938:SynergeticMaggot 1868:See above point. 1743:User: Mojojojo69 1703: 1697: 1693: 1687: 1582: 1576: 1572: 1566: 1535: 1401:Hemlock Martinis 1259:Hemlock Martinis 1236: 1151:SynergeticMaggot 1089: 1064: 1012: 1006: 1002: 996: 953:Hemlock Martinis 909: 906: 884: 881: 832: 779: 641:Hemlock Martinis 581: 467: 464: 406:Hemlock Martinis 400:Obama's website 276: 196: 190: 172: 121:SynergeticMaggot 79:The result was 34: 4866: 4865: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4848:deletion review 4841: 4234:acknowledgement 4232:. Richardson's 4220: 4193: 4115: 3949:Checkers speech 3899: 3834:Northwesterner1 3822:Checkers speech 3782: 3774: 3558: 3553: 3550: 3547: 3544: 3425: 3417: 3179: 2869: 2842: 2827: 2822: 2637: 2159: 2072: 2063: 2060: 2050: 2018: 2004: 2000: 1994: 1992: 1707: 1698: 1695: 1685: 1586: 1577: 1574: 1564: 1211:Checkers speech 1016: 1007: 1004: 994: 904: 879: 773:Washington Post 718:Weekly Standard 542:. If you read 462: 192: 163: 147: 144: 134: 133: 108:Snowball clause 76: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4864: 4862: 4853: 4852: 4836: 4835: 4817: 4816: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4749: 4748: 4730: 4729: 4707: 4706: 4675: 4631: 4630: 4623: 4622: 4615: 4614: 4607: 4606: 4599: 4598: 4591: 4590: 4585:Economist, UK 4583: 4582: 4575: 4574: 4567: 4566: 4559: 4558: 4551: 4550: 4541: 4540: 4533: 4532: 4506: 4505: 4487: 4486: 4474: 4458:, such as the 4449: 4437:per coverage. 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4360:if and only if 4353: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4327: 4326: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4274: 4273: 4255: 4254: 4237: 4227: 4213: 4200:198.166.58.117 4188: 4187: 4186: 4161:. Per Above -- 4155: 4154: 4136: 4135: 4106: 4105: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4030: 4012: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3990: 3964: 3963: 3953:EngineerScotty 3929: 3908: 3883: 3844: 3791: 3762: 3744: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3593: 3592: 3572:I Have a Dream 3565: 3533: 3514: 3513: 3494: 3493: 3483:Eleven Special 3475: 3474: 3453: 3452: 3434: 3433: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3297:and a soapbox 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3243: 3242: 3226:. This is an 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3200: 3199: 3171: 3170: 3160:Arbiteroftruth 3153: 3136: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3092:Colonel Warden 3057:Colonel Warden 3044: 3043: 3033:Colonel Warden 3014: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2973:I Have A Dream 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2889: 2862: 2849:69.139.153.162 2834: 2814: 2813: 2783: 2765: 2747: 2731: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2657: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2563: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2524: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2344: 2306: 2277: 2276: 2258: 2257: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2166:69.139.153.162 2092: 2076: 2059: 2055: 2010: 2009: 1998: 1982: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1869: 1866: 1858: 1857: 1839: 1838: 1835: 1834:being violated 1827: 1819: 1808: 1807: 1786: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1735: 1734: 1711: 1694: 1690: 1680:WP:IDONTKNOWIT 1675: 1674: 1648: 1647: 1629: 1628: 1611: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1573: 1569: 1559:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1555:WP:ATA#CRYSTAL 1548: 1529:our guidelines 1522: 1521: 1515: 1498: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1472: 1455: 1454: 1437: 1436: 1411: 1396: 1378: 1377: 1367:Colonel Warden 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1326: 1325: 1308: 1290: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1207:I Have a Dream 1200: 1199: 1185:I Have a Dream 1178: 1161: 1140: 1132:Angus McLellan 1124: 1123: 1122: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1046: 1045: 1035:Colonel Warden 1021: 1020: 1003: 999: 982: 981: 980: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 866: 865: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 816: 815: 814: 813: 769:New York Times 752: 751: 733: 732: 703: 686: 685: 684: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 608: 558: 557: 536: 535: 510: 509: 508: 507: 452:Posh and Becks 434: 433: 419: 418: 417: 416: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 358:Metropolitan90 322: 321: 313:Metropolitan90 292:Note to closer 259: 258: 240:I Have a Dream 205: 203: 202: 143: 138: 136: 132: 131: 112: 111: 77: 74: 73: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4863: 4851: 4849: 4844: 4838: 4837: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4822: 4819: 4818: 4815: 4812: 4807: 4804: 4803: 4798: 4795: 4793: 4792: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4771: 4767: 4763: 4758: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4735: 4732: 4731: 4728: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4709: 4708: 4705: 4702: 4697: 4693: 4688: 4683: 4679: 4676: 4674: 4670: 4664: 4659: 4654: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4644: 4640: 4634: 4628: 4627: 4626: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4556: 4555: 4554: 4548: 4547: 4545: 4538: 4535: 4534: 4531: 4527: 4523: 4519: 4515: 4511: 4508: 4507: 4504: 4500: 4496: 4492: 4489: 4488: 4485: 4482: 4478: 4475: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4450: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4433: 4432: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4403: 4401: 4400: 4395: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4384: 4380: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4370: 4368: 4367: 4361: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4336: 4331: 4330: 4329: 4328: 4325: 4321: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4306: 4305: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4284: 4281: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4260: 4257: 4256: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4238: 4235: 4231: 4228: 4226: 4223: 4221:Nightstallion 4217: 4214: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4197: 4189: 4185: 4182: 4180: 4179: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4157: 4156: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4141: 4138: 4137: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4123: 4119: 4111: 4108: 4107: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4095:Boscobiscotti 4092: 4088: 4085: 4084: 4079: 4076: 4074: 4073: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4062: 4053: 4050: 4048: 4047: 4042: 4041: 4038: 4034: 4031: 4029: 4025: 4021: 4016: 4013: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3998: 3995: 3994: 3989: 3985: 3981: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3950: 3946: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3930: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3912: 3909: 3907: 3904: 3902: 3897: 3896: 3891: 3887: 3884: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3870: 3867: 3864: 3861: 3858: 3855: 3852: 3848: 3845: 3843: 3839: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3778: 3777: 3770: 3766: 3763: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3748: 3745: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3724: 3723: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3701: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3680: 3677: 3675: 3674: 3669: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3635: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3623: 3619: 3614: 3610: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3591: 3586: 3582: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3566: 3564: 3561: 3556: 3541: 3537: 3534: 3532: 3528: 3524: 3519: 3516: 3515: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3499: 3496: 3495: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3477: 3476: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3462: 3458: 3455: 3454: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3429: 3422: 3420: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3395: 3389: 3384: 3383: 3381: 3377: 3372: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3363: 3361: 3360: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3343:Fovean Author 3339: 3336: 3335: 3330: 3327: 3325: 3324: 3319: 3315: 3314: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3289: 3288: 3283: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3251: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3222: 3221: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3176: 3173: 3172: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3154: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3137: 3135: 3132: 3131:Jack Merridew 3128: 3125: 3124: 3115: 3112: 3110: 3109: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3080: 3078: 3077: 3072: 3071:WP:OTHERSTUFF 3068: 3067: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3015: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2998: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2967: 2966: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2946: 2942: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2897: 2893: 2890: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2866: 2863: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2838: 2835: 2833: 2830: 2825: 2819: 2816: 2815: 2812: 2807: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2787: 2784: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2769: 2766: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2751: 2748: 2746: 2743: 2741: 2740: 2735: 2732: 2730: 2726: 2723: 2722: 2717: 2715: 2710: 2707: 2703: 2700: 2698: 2697: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2685: 2682: 2681:contributions 2679: 2676: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2658: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2634: 2631: 2623: 2620: 2618: 2617: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2592: 2590: 2589: 2584: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2557: 2554: 2544: 2541: 2539: 2538: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2506: 2504: 2503: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2461: 2459: 2458: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2437: 2434: 2431: 2427: 2424: 2422: 2421: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2400: 2397: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2370: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2345: 2343: 2338: 2334: 2329: 2328: 2323: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2307: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2288: 2282: 2279: 2278: 2275: 2272: 2270: 2269: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2241: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2221: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2196: 2193: 2191: 2190: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2150: 2148: 2147: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2129: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2119: 2117: 2116: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2088: 2086: 2085: 2080: 2077: 2075: 2070: 2065: 2054: 2053: 2046: 2042: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025:158.72.194.79 2022: 2015: 2014:Strong Delete 2012: 2011: 2008: 2003: 1997: 1990: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1958: 1955: 1954: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1888: 1886: 1885: 1876: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1836: 1833: 1832: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1820: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1787: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1773:, undeniably 1772: 1769: 1765: 1762: 1761: 1756: 1752: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1733: 1730: 1728: 1727: 1722: 1717: 1712: 1710: 1705: 1700: 1689: 1688: 1681: 1677: 1676: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1643: 1641: 1640: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1612: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1595: 1594: 1589: 1584: 1579: 1568: 1567: 1560: 1556: 1553: 1549: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1534: 1530: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1516: 1514: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1499: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1481: 1480: 1471: 1468: 1466: 1465: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1430: 1429: 1424: 1419: 1415: 1412: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1397: 1395: 1392: 1391: 1387: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1315:Fovean Author 1312: 1309: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1294: 1291: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1274: 1273: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1181:Strong Delete 1179: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1162: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1141: 1139: 1136: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1118: 1116: 1115: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1100:contributions 1098: 1095: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1081: 1080: 1072: 1069:was added at 1068: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1014: 1009: 998: 997: 990: 986: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 964: 963: 962: 958: 954: 950: 947: 946: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 920: 919: 916: 913: 908: 907: 899: 896: 895: 894: 891: 888: 883: 882: 874: 870: 869: 868: 867: 863: 859: 855: 852: 851: 844: 840: 836: 831: 827: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 793: 792: 791: 787: 783: 778: 774: 770: 765: 761: 757: 754: 753: 750: 746: 742: 738: 735: 734: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 704: 702: 698: 694: 690: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 664: 663: 662: 661: 650: 646: 642: 638: 637: 636: 632: 628: 623: 622: 621: 618: 616: 615: 609: 607: 603: 599: 595: 594: 593: 589: 585: 580: 577:nomination.-- 575: 574: 573: 569: 565: 560: 559: 556: 553: 551: 550: 545: 541: 538: 537: 534: 531: 530: 526: 522: 519: 515: 512: 511: 506: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 482: 479: 478: 477: 474: 471: 466: 465: 457: 453: 449: 444: 440: 437:I agree with 436: 435: 432: 429: 426: 421: 420: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 393: 390: 388: 387: 382: 379: 376: 372: 367: 366: 365: 362: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 338: 337: 334: 332: 331: 326: 325: 324: 323: 320: 317: 314: 310: 307: 306: 305: 304: 301: 299: 298: 293: 289: 288: 284: 280: 275: 271: 267: 263: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 232: 231: 230: 226: 222: 219: 215: 211: 206: 200: 195: 188: 184: 180: 176: 171: 167: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 145: 142: 139: 137: 130: 126: 122: 118: 114: 113: 109: 106: 105: 104: 102: 98: 94: 90: 86: 82: 72: 68: 64: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4842: 4839: 4820: 4805: 4790: 4785: 4757:Bigtimepeace 4733: 4710: 4687:This article 4681: 4677: 4652: 4636: 4632: 4624: 4616: 4608: 4600: 4592: 4584: 4576: 4568: 4560: 4552: 4542: 4536: 4518:Barack Obama 4510:Strong Merge 4509: 4490: 4476: 4451: 4434: 4398: 4365: 4335:Bigtimepeace 4308:Delete/Merge 4307: 4286: 4279: 4258: 4239: 4229: 4215: 4194:— Preceding 4177: 4158: 4139: 4121: 4117: 4109: 4086: 4071: 4060: 4058: 4045: 4036: 4032: 4014: 3996: 3975:Bigtimepeace 3970: 3935: 3931: 3910: 3900: 3894: 3885: 3846: 3814:Two Americas 3793: 3781: 3779: 3772: 3764: 3746: 3725: 3700:Bigtimepeace 3672: 3667: 3650: 3633: 3613:Bigtimepeace 3608: 3595: 3594: 3567: 3535: 3517: 3497: 3478: 3456: 3437: 3418: 3412: 3393: 3387: 3379: 3375: 3370: 3358: 3341:scripture.-- 3337: 3322: 3317: 3290: 3249: 3227: 3223: 3186:78.113.21.22 3180:— Preceding 3174: 3155: 3143:Spikebrennan 3138: 3126: 3107: 3087: 3075: 3069:Please keep 3052: 3028: 3024: 3016: 2999: 2968: 2945:Bigtimepeace 2940: 2909:Bigtimepeace 2900: 2891: 2876:64.45.236.60 2870:— Preceding 2864: 2843:— Preceding 2836: 2823: 2817: 2801: 2798:crystal ball 2793: 2785: 2767: 2749: 2739:HoosierState 2738: 2733: 2720: 2713: 2708: 2695: 2683: 2677: 2671: 2663: 2659: 2644:70.134.76.51 2638:— Preceding 2632: 2615: 2587: 2565: 2555: 2536: 2527: 2501: 2496: 2488: 2487:rather than 2484: 2456: 2432: 2419: 2398: 2346: 2326: 2312: 2308: 2280: 2267: 2263:own web site 2242: 2219: 2214: 2188: 2160:— Preceding 2145: 2114: 2094: 2083: 2078: 2049: 2040: 2019:— Preceding 2013: 1988: 1984: 1956: 1933: 1883: 1880: 1863:crystal ball 1840: 1829: 1821: 1815: 1809: 1788: 1778: 1770: 1758: 1750: 1738: 1725: 1684: 1655: 1651: 1638: 1614:Speedy merge 1613: 1596: 1563: 1533:Bigtimepeace 1517: 1500: 1482: 1463: 1427: 1388: 1350: 1310: 1292: 1275: 1234:Bigtimepeace 1180: 1163: 1146: 1142: 1113: 1102: 1096: 1090: 1082: 1052: 993: 984: 965: 948: 903: 901: 878: 876: 872: 853: 830:Bigtimepeace 794: 777:Bigtimepeace 755: 736: 705: 688: 665: 613: 579:Bigtimepeace 562:long-term.-- 548: 539: 527: 517: 513: 480: 461: 459: 455: 442: 385: 353: 350:main article 345: 329: 308: 296: 291: 290: 274:Bigtimepeace 261: 260: 217: 207: 204: 135: 100: 88: 84: 80: 78: 45: 43: 31: 28: 4653:Strong keep 4240:Strong Keep 4216:Speedy keep 4159:Strong Keep 4037:in addition 4033:Strong Keep 4015:Strong Keep 3873:Msethisuwan 3794:Strong Keep 3765:Strong Keep 3747:Strong Keep 3576:Josiah Rowe 3568:Strong Keep 3503:Travisritch 3498:Strong Keep 3175:Strong Keep 3127:Speedy Keep 3049:Google News 3021:Google News 3000:Strong Keep 2941:this speech 2768:Strong Keep 2734:Strong Keep 2633:Strong Keep 2534:out there. 2497:as a speech 2347:STRONG KEEP 2317:WP:NOT#NEWS 2285:—Preceding 2247:WAVY 10 Fan 1961:—Preceding 1957:Strong Keep 1872:WP:NOT#NEWS 1831:WP:NOT#NEWS 1791:, I agree, 1678:Please see 1634:just a vote 1501:Strong Keep 1423:WP:NOT#NEWS 1384:attention. 1363:WP:NOT#NEWS 1276:Strong Keep 1164:Speedy Keep 1147:speedy keep 1128:WP:NOT#NEWS 1065:—Preceding 949:Strong Keep 875:to others. 741:Yonisyuumei 689:Strong Keep 540:Strong Keep 81:Speedy keep 4811:Kicking222 4658:statistics 3919:Mrprada911 3915:WP:Crystal 3303:Firefly322 3299:WP:SOAPBOX 3073:in mind. 3031:coverage. 3019:Yesterday 2773:AugustinMa 2560:ciphergoth 1823:WP:CRYSTAL 1816:Notability 1814:Continued 1660:WP:SOAPBOX 1029:says that 799:WP:CRYSTAL 670:WP:CRYSTAL 497:Firefly322 342:transcript 50:Eluchil404 4825:Klausness 4696:Sjakkalle 4522:Schrandit 4481:Falcorian 4412:Fritzpoll 4379:Fritzpoll 4316:Fritzpoll 4287:unanimous 4263:Porterjoh 3734:Pixelface 3523:Tomgreeny 3442:Drewtwo99 3376:important 3051:. It is 1995:Chetblong 1967:Genordell 912:. . .talk 898:Cg-realms 887:. . .talk 873:"notable" 858:Cg-realms 760:WP:SPEECH 493:astrology 485:astrology 470:. . .talk 101:Rationale 4791:Celarnor 4766:contribs 4700:(Check!) 4639:Cgingold 4399:Celarnor 4366:Celarnor 4344:contribs 4244:Kuralyov 4208:contribs 4196:unsigned 4178:Celarnor 4072:Celarnor 4046:Celarnor 4020:Jkfp2004 3984:contribs 3752:Aknorals 3709:contribs 3673:Celarnor 3622:contribs 3585:contribs 3394:Celarnor 3380:movement 3359:Celarnor 3323:Celarnor 3295:Wikinews 3194:contribs 3182:unsigned 3108:Celarnor 3076:Celarnor 2954:contribs 2918:contribs 2884:contribs 2872:unsigned 2857:contribs 2845:unsigned 2696:Celarnor 2652:contribs 2640:unsigned 2616:Celarnor 2588:Celarnor 2537:Celarnor 2502:Celarnor 2493:NOT#NEWS 2457:Celarnor 2420:Celarnor 2404:Eusebeus 2382:Scjessey 2355:Scjessey 2337:Contribs 2327:lifebaka 2299:contribs 2287:unsigned 2268:Celarnor 2220:Celarnor 2189:Celarnor 2174:contribs 2162:unsigned 2146:Celarnor 2115:Celarnor 2084:Celarnor 2051:Wisdom89 2033:contribs 2021:unsigned 1975:contribs 1963:unsigned 1884:Celarnor 1881:Cheers. 1780:hateless 1760:hateless 1751:Comment: 1726:Celarnor 1686:Wisdom89 1639:Celarnor 1618:Camaeron 1565:Wisdom89 1542:contribs 1488:Joshdboz 1464:Celarnor 1428:Celarnor 1414:WP:UNDUE 1386:Zagalejo 1359:WP:UNDUE 1280:Balonkey 1243:contribs 1114:Celarnor 995:Wisdom89 905:conman33 880:conman33 839:contribs 786:contribs 693:Valadius 627:Joshdboz 614:Celarnor 588:contribs 549:Celarnor 525:Zagalejo 489:WP:UNDUE 463:conman33 441:. Yeah, 425:damario0 402:calls it 386:Celarnor 330:Celarnor 297:Celarnor 283:contribs 199:View log 4516:or the 4464:Mass147 4283:WP:SNOW 4280:Comment 4144:Kingdon 4061:serious 3655:Bardcom 3651:comment 3638:JoshuaZ 3388:outside 3371:outside 3338:Comment 3318:outside 3250:elevate 3228:obvious 3029:lasting 3017:Comment 2755:Gccwang 2668:Tlogmer 2528:several 2485:sources 2433:Comment 2351:example 2291:Kye2789 2243:Comment 2095:Comment 2079:Comment 2045:WP:NPOV 2041:Comment 1934:outside 1899:JoshuaZ 1793:notable 1775:notable 1755:notable 1716:WP:SOAP 1664:Bardcom 1601:vossman 1418:WP:SOAP 1355:WP:SOAP 1298:JoshuaZ 1087:Tlogmer 1067:comment 1027:WP:NOTE 989:WP:NOTE 966:Comment 795:Comment 666:Comment 564:RWR8189 221:RWR8189 218:deleted 166:protect 161:history 4738:Loodog 4734:Update 4495:Remy B 4291:Loodog 3936:rename 3911:Delete 3604:viewed 3464:Dr.enh 3291:Delete 3207:Loodog 2981:Pharos 2865:Delete 2837:Delete 2828:figura 2750:Delete 2600:Loodog 2514:Loodog 2470:Loodog 2441:Loodog 2399:Delete 2281:Delete 2099:Loodog 1843:Loodog 1797:Fnsnet 1739:Delete 1656:strong 1652:Delete 1616:= ) -- 1518:Delete 1444:Loodog 1351:Delete 1334:Mr. IP 1311:DELETE 1215:Mr. IP 1189:Loodog 1168:Mr. IP 1135:(Talk) 1057:MMZach 970:Loodog 928:Loodog 803:Loodog 722:MMZach 674:Loodog 598:Loodog 450:" or " 439:Dr.enh 428:(talk) 361:(talk) 316:(talk) 309:Delete 248:Dr.enh 194:delete 170:delete 87:as in 85:Speedy 63:Loodog 4680:. It 4110:Keep. 3945:Nixon 3901:Tucky 3668:Reply 2806:Peter 2727:: --> 2725:edits 2716:eland 2380:. -- 2369:Bobet 2353:) -- 2324:. -- 2309:Chill 2206:Bobet 2128:Bobet 710:Salon 381:clear 378:quite 354:title 197:) – ( 187:views 179:watch 175:links 16:< 4829:talk 4821:Keep 4762:talk 4742:talk 4723:talk 4719:Itub 4711:Keep 4678:Keep 4669:talk 4663:Tvoz 4643:talk 4537:Keep 4526:talk 4499:talk 4491:Keep 4477:Keep 4468:talk 4454:per 4452:Keep 4443:talk 4435:Keep 4416:talk 4383:talk 4340:talk 4320:talk 4295:talk 4267:talk 4259:Keep 4248:talk 4230:Keep 4204:talk 4167:talk 4148:talk 4140:Keep 4129:talk 4122:here 4099:talk 4087:keep 4024:talk 4006:talk 3997:Keep 3980:talk 3971:must 3957:talk 3932:Keep 3923:talk 3886:Keep 3877:talk 3847:Keep 3838:talk 3775:Grsz 3756:talk 3738:talk 3726:Keep 3705:talk 3659:talk 3642:talk 3618:talk 3581:talk 3574:". — 3536:Keep 3527:talk 3518:Keep 3507:talk 3487:talk 3479:Keep 3468:talk 3457:Keep 3446:talk 3438:Keep 3413:Keep 3347:talk 3307:talk 3278:talk 3236:talk 3211:talk 3190:talk 3164:talk 3156:Keep 3147:talk 3139:Keep 3096:talk 3061:talk 3037:talk 3008:talk 2985:talk 2969:Keep 2950:talk 2914:talk 2896:this 2880:talk 2853:talk 2818:Keep 2802:wait 2794:lack 2786:Keep 2777:talk 2759:talk 2721:talk 2709:Keep 2675:talk 2664:move 2660:Keep 2648:talk 2604:talk 2574:talk 2566:Keep 2556:Keep 2518:talk 2474:talk 2445:talk 2436:WP:N 2408:talk 2386:talk 2378:this 2359:talk 2333:Talk 2295:talk 2251:talk 2215:only 2170:talk 2103:talk 2029:talk 2001:Sign 1985:Keep 1971:talk 1942:talk 1903:talk 1847:talk 1801:talk 1789:Keep 1771:Keep 1721:bold 1668:talk 1622:talk 1605:talk 1597:Keep 1538:talk 1509:Talk 1492:talk 1483:Keep 1448:talk 1405:talk 1371:talk 1361:and 1353:per 1338:talk 1319:talk 1302:talk 1293:keep 1284:talk 1263:talk 1239:talk 1229:WP:N 1219:talk 1193:talk 1172:talk 1155:talk 1143:Keep 1094:talk 1083:Keep 1061:talk 1039:talk 985:Keep 974:talk 957:talk 932:talk 862:talk 854:Keep 835:talk 826:WP:N 807:talk 782:talk 771:and 764:WP:N 756:Keep 745:talk 737:Keep 726:talk 706:Keep 697:talk 678:talk 645:talk 631:talk 602:talk 584:talk 568:talk 514:Keep 501:talk 410:talk 279:talk 270:this 266:this 252:talk 225:talk 183:logs 157:talk 153:edit 125:talk 95:and 93:SNOW 89:fast 67:talk 54:talk 46:Keep 4788:. 4764:| 4394:NYT 4342:| 4124:now 4118:ust 3982:| 3947:'s 3938:to 3917:. 3895:Van 3707:| 3620:| 3272:. 2952:| 2943:.-- 2916:| 2570:P4k 2141:see 1989:not 1540:| 1390:^^^ 1241:| 1209:to 1187:.-- 1063:) 1053:any 837:| 801:.-- 797:. 784:| 714:WSJ 672:.-- 668:. 586:| 529:^^^ 383:. 281:| 214:not 117:NAC 97:IAR 91:. 4831:) 4760:| 4744:) 4725:) 4682:is 4645:) 4528:) 4501:) 4470:) 4445:) 4418:) 4385:) 4338:| 4322:) 4314:. 4297:) 4269:) 4250:) 4210:) 4206:• 4169:) 4150:) 4131:) 4120:me 4101:) 4026:) 4018:-- 4008:) 3978:| 3959:) 3925:) 3879:) 3840:) 3820:, 3816:, 3812:, 3808:, 3783:11 3771:. 3758:) 3740:) 3703:| 3661:) 3644:) 3616:| 3583:• 3554:ex 3551:sD 3548:xa 3545:Te 3538:. 3529:) 3509:) 3489:) 3470:) 3448:) 3426:** 3349:) 3313:. 3309:) 3280:) 3268:; 3264:; 3260:; 3256:; 3238:) 3213:) 3196:) 3192:• 3166:) 3149:) 3098:) 3063:) 3039:) 3010:) 2987:) 2948:| 2912:| 2886:) 2882:• 2859:) 2855:• 2796:a 2779:) 2761:) 2714:el 2654:) 2650:• 2606:) 2576:) 2520:) 2476:) 2447:) 2410:) 2388:) 2361:) 2335:- 2301:) 2297:• 2265:. 2253:) 2176:) 2172:• 2105:) 2066:/ 2035:) 2031:• 1977:) 1973:• 1944:) 1905:) 1849:) 1803:) 1757:. 1701:/ 1682:. 1670:) 1624:) 1607:) 1580:/ 1557:, 1536:| 1511:) 1505:KV 1494:) 1450:) 1407:) 1399:-- 1373:) 1357:, 1340:) 1321:) 1304:) 1286:) 1265:) 1237:| 1221:) 1195:) 1174:) 1157:) 1041:) 1033:. 1010:/ 976:) 959:) 934:) 833:| 809:) 780:| 747:) 728:) 716:, 712:, 699:) 680:) 647:) 633:) 604:) 582:| 570:) 523:. 518:is 503:) 412:) 375:is 277:| 254:) 227:) 185:| 181:| 177:| 173:| 168:| 164:| 159:| 155:| 127:) 119:. 99:. 83:. 69:) 61:-- 56:) 4827:( 4740:( 4721:( 4690:" 4666:| 4641:( 4524:( 4497:( 4466:( 4441:( 4414:( 4381:( 4318:( 4293:( 4265:( 4246:( 4202:( 4165:( 4146:( 4127:( 4116:J 4097:( 4022:( 4004:( 3955:( 3921:( 3875:( 3836:( 3798:1 3754:( 3736:( 3657:( 3640:( 3587:) 3579:( 3559:★ 3525:( 3505:( 3485:( 3466:( 3444:( 3345:( 3305:( 3276:( 3234:( 3209:( 3188:( 3162:( 3145:( 3094:( 3059:( 3035:( 3006:( 2983:( 2878:( 2851:( 2824:B 2775:( 2757:( 2718:/ 2684:) 2678:/ 2672:( 2646:( 2602:( 2572:( 2516:( 2472:( 2443:( 2406:( 2384:( 2357:( 2339:) 2331:( 2293:( 2249:( 2168:( 2101:( 2071:) 2061:T 2056:( 2027:( 1969:( 1940:( 1901:( 1845:( 1799:( 1706:) 1696:T 1691:( 1666:( 1620:( 1603:( 1585:) 1575:T 1570:( 1507:( 1490:( 1446:( 1403:( 1369:( 1336:( 1317:( 1300:( 1282:( 1261:( 1217:( 1191:( 1170:( 1153:( 1103:) 1097:/ 1091:( 1059:( 1037:( 1015:) 1005:T 1000:( 972:( 955:( 930:( 914:) 910:( 889:) 885:( 860:( 805:( 743:( 724:( 695:( 676:( 643:( 629:( 600:( 566:( 499:( 472:) 468:( 408:( 250:( 223:( 201:) 191:( 189:) 151:( 123:( 65:( 52:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/A More Perfect Union - Knowledge (XXG)

Index