576:. I agree that the claim to notability can't be based on seniority in her profession: as you say, she is still a long way from achieving that. But I don't think the article is using the word or idea of "top", is it? The year of her call to the Inner Temple is a little misleading, too, because she was called to the New York bar in 2002 and has apparently had a lot of legal experience that isn't advocacy in court. Without the Clooney relationship Alamuddin would still have some notability, though arguably borderline. Given her human rights background – a long-standing interest of Clooney's –
610:
mistresses have always been recorded throughout history, and such individuals have usually achieved notability simply for their relationship with royalty. While George
Clooney may be considered 'Hollywood royalty' by some, I do not believe this case can be considered in the same league. My concerns regarding the media reporting on Ms Alamuddin's legal career is that the information seems to be coming from unverified (or unattributed) sources. I merely cited a couple of examples to illustrate that the news reports have not been accurate and are therefore unreliable.
2135:
sometimes unreliable sources have reliable news (National
Enquirer: John Edwards, Gary Hart, Rush Limbaugh) and sometimes reliable ones have unreliable news (Rathergate). Being in the news does not confer notability. Reliable sources do not confer notability. Ms Alamuddin is not notable in her own right, so it doesn't matter if you use a reliable source. If the New York Times reported she went to a restaurant that would still not make it worth inclusion here. If you want to report news, go to a site that lets you report news. This site is an encyclopedia.--
1658:
unreliable sources and unreliable information in reliable sources. The issue here, and on many pages similar to this throughout
Knowledge (XXG), is that newspapers are being used to source an encyclopedia. Knowledge (XXG) is not a Newspaper. Taking reports from newspapers directly into Knowledge (XXG) devalues both the encyclopedia and the news. Ms Alamuddin mayy merit a line on Mr Clooney's page but she does not merit this page, which is made by editors who think news is notability. I discuss this further in the link I gave above.--
532:: Ms Alamuddin has not achieved notability in the context of her legal career or in her own right which is the intended subject matter for the proposed Wiki entry. At the present time she is notable only for being George Clooney's fiancée. The media / tabloid reports of her legal achievements to date also appear to have been exaggerated and therefore, if properly fact checked, are not reliable sources of information.
491:: There will clearly be many people curious to know who George Clooney's partner is and a google and wikipedia are usually peoples first choices for information. I therefore believe it is in the public interest to have this information available and see no reason why people would be so adamant to delete this page when this is clearly a noteworthy individual whom people are likely to want more information regarding.
244:. However, looking at the bigger picture, she is worthy of our attention even if she broke up with Clooney tonight. Finally, her notability (online media coverage) is only going to increase from today going forward. We, the Knowledge (XXG) editors, have nothing to lose by taking the time to look for the online sources that support her notability and adding them to the article. Thank you.
454:
consideration. If that were the case, why don't you add everyone on the planet just in case they become notable one day? Also when you have to look for sources to confirm someone's notability that means that she is not notable. Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper, and should not be a place where editors regurgitate any old information from a newspaper. --
2064:
cents, I updated the article with some reliable sources, and I hope it wont get deleted, since it shows plethora of reliable sources. If however, an uninvolved admin would like to delete it still, will he be kindly be asked to move the article into mine and creator's sandboxes, so that we can finish it up? Cheers to everyone!--
2185:
assume that editors who edit article on sports are probably fans of specific team, otherwise they will care less. Lets be clear, I came to this article because it was mentioned for deletion, I add some bad refs but then I added some good ones, the result: an updated article, which hopefully wont be deleted or merged per some
1122:
O.K. I'm almost at the end of the
January 2014 discussion about the Daily Mail, and it said that the consensus agreed to use it for Sports and Celebrities with caution. So, here is the deal, give me a link of celebrity RSs that in your opinion are an RS and I will happily add them. Furthermore, in my
2149:
First of all, this is getting off topic, this whole 'personal life' discussion needs to be on her talk page. This is strictly about if the article should be kept or not. That being said, unless it says their honeymoon (which is after a marriage) then I think just a vacation is certainly NOT notable.
2189:
including mine. I know that user
Sparkzilla is against the article as a whole, and therefore is entitled to his opinion. What I don't want to hear is criticism from him about my old refs. All of us learn, and all of us make mistakes, and all of us jokes (i.e. my reporting on everything was merely a
1672:
I perfectly understand your point, but here the issue: What sources are required for celebrities? Like, I see them being mentioned in People, Us Weekly, and other mainstream magazine when I go to local Cub Foods, yet over here people call them unreliable???? Like, celebrities don't get mentioned on
1444:
Oh, I know that. There just seems to be a slightly inappropriate tone emerging in some of the posts here, as if
Alamuddin is claiming notability that she doesn't deserve. I just wanted to put the point that she might be delighted to see this article deleted and salted. In fact, perhaps she's one of
1061:
has been repeatedly declared unreliable due to frequent fraudulence. FOX News has also been frequently criticized for fraudulent reports against liberals (notably numerous lies about
President Barack Obama), so I'd say it's not a reliable source either. While political bias isn't explicitly said to
2184:
I clearly agree with the fact that this is an encyclopedia, but the thing is is that since I am new to the whole celebrity topic, I don't know the difference between the inclusion of encyclopedic material and gossip mag. And I am not trying to make
Knowledge (XXG) a fan site either, however we can
1139:
Forget that since we have BBC sources anyway which you have labelled as reliable so we don't need to worry about the daily mail. I dont understand why some of you are so desperate to get this article deleted when clearly people will want to know who she is. A simple google of "BBC Amal
Alamuddin"
56:
and close this. The subject continues to receive heavy coverage, as I have noted just now, when checking Google News search. Given that the keep arguments in this AfD outnumber delete arguments by 3 to 1 and given that the continued heavy coverage of the subject that I found just now bears out the
1657:
Your discussion points to one of the major flaws in
Knowledge (XXG): Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and software do not allow easy distinction between the reporting of an event and the truth behind that event. It doesn't matter which source you use, it will have bias. There is reliable information in
2063:
article have something being said about travels to Africa and adopting kids from there and even helping them as a humanitarian worker. Like, really, I too care less what Angelina Jolie is doing in Africa, but you know, not everyone agrees with me. As far as discussion goes, you know, here my two
1510:
If we will say "this not RS", and "this is not RS", we end up we conservative Knowledge (XXG), where only anti-liberal media is allowed. Next CNN will do something stupid and you guys will say, its a BS not RS???!!! Like honestly, we need to have a boundary here, if such refs are not welcomed by
1289:
having a large number of questionable sources isn't necessarily going to help here. It might be better to stick to the main broadsheets (in the UK, that's the Financial Times, Glasgow Herald, Guardian, Independent, Observer, Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Times, and Sunday Times), serious weeklies
453:
Ms Alamuddin is not notable in her own right. her legal work is not notable. I count one TV appearance before she got engaged to Clooney. The only notability you are conferring upon her is because she is engaged to a movie star, so mention her in brief on his page. Her future notability is not a
1855:
Sure its sufficient, its a part of Personal life segment, otherwise its one sentence in a section. What do you mean that it doesn't provide explicit evidence? Isn't Star Tribune and Los Angeles Times are RSs or in your opinion they too just like the Mirror is a gossip? I thought you called them
544:
e.g. She has been widely reported in the media as being the barrister representing Julian Assange, however no published legal judgment exists which names her as one of his representatives - other barristers are named. Similarly, none of the other high profile work that has been attributed to Ms
239:
I am the editor who wrote the original article on 4 April 2014, which was deleted on or around 14 April 2014. At that time the objection was to her notability, based on articles about her online. In my view there was then and there is now enough online material about her to grant her notability
2134:
Usually a honeymoon is after the wedding. Angelina Jolie went to Africa on a high profile UN humanitarian mission. Just because something has a source, even a reliable one, does not mean it can be included in Knowledge (XXG). Not only that but a blanket ban on particular sources is nonsense --
2054:
Hah! You gave a link to Daily Mail which was removed from the article. I found the same info in The Chronicle, a much more reliable source. As far as restaurant goes, heck, if it will be mentioned in a reliable source, I will provide a room number at the hotel they will stay in too, along with
609:
and for the link to the discussion on Kate Middleton. I think this particular entry is distinguishable from Kate Middleton's entry because Kate Middleton's notability was directly as a result of her position as a girlfriend / long term partner to the heir to the throne. Royal girlfriends and
515:, she has been involved in a number of high-profile cases at the ICC, which made her notable prior and without the relation to GC, and without the "news" angle (lawyers are hardly ever front-page news, unless they are specializing in a field that is bound to be front-page news in detail).--
537:
e.g. She has been widely reported as being a 'top' barrister and is said to be at the 'top of her career' but this is not plausible as she was only called to the bar in November 2010 and would also have needed to complete a period of training (pupillage) after being
432:
While Ms Alamuddin has generated some news, she is not notable for an entry in an encyclopedia. Knowledge (XXG) is not just a repository of facts culled from newspapers. I specifically address this page and this problem in this article:
783:. I was pinged. I !voted to overturn the speedy at the DRV but did not give a view on the article. I have little doubt Alamuddin has received sufficient attention in the media about her professional achievements to meet
188:
1298:
is quite correct that their motive is irrelevant. Also bear in mind that there's no suggestion that Alamuddin wishes to have a Knowledge (XXG) article—she might be much happier without one (q.v. Seth Finkelstein
1103:
is most certainly reliable, and so are ABC and CNN. The problem is that most of the reliable third-party sources covering here either don't provide much on her own person and/or are mainly about George Clooney.
1426:
Now, lets be clear, Wikipedians don't ask permission from their notables, if they want an article here or not. Like, Knowledge (XXG) is not an advertising agency, who asks: "Do you wanna be a part of this..."--
2120:
Part of their engagement, honeymoon I think, although it doesn't specify it. It was reported by The Chronicle and Sunshine Coast Daily. Look into the Personal Life section of the article, the refs are there.--
87:
314:
1066:
magazine I would also strongly discourage since when talking about things like celeb couples (such as when they report a couple has ended their relationship), they often favor one celeb over the other.
2078:
You can move it into your own sandbox yourself. Reports on celebs having meals together, staying in the same hotel, or what they do behind closed doors is regarded as trivial. WP:NOTNEWS applies here.
1036:
Maybe I don't understand something? But then give me a good reason why they are not considred RSs in your opinion? Are the sources are left or right wing? I certainly didn't took them out from the
1677:, but then it might add an undue weight by saying that Amal Alamuddin appeared on the View and said blah, blah, and blah about blah, blah, and blah. If you are so into redirecting, lets redirect
278:
For whatever reason, she has enough interest from the public to have many secondary and tertiary sources from reputable publishers. She has represented a few high-profile cases as well. —
766:
half hour documentary (which is a big deal). However she does seem to have had an influential involvement in various soft left legal spats such as Julian Assange and Julia Tymoshenko.
2150:
Engagement party. No. Marriage. Yes. Honeymoon. Yes. Anything else. No. Remember this is an encyclopedia, not a fan site or gossip mag, we don't need to know certain details about them
389:
354:
Like it or not (and it's not for us to be judging the so-called "celebrity" side of things), there are sufficient secondary reliable sources, and more will be coming along very soon.
2030:
1160:
1216:
1212:
1123:
opinion if an article contains an unreliable source, its better then no source at all. Plus, we can always back it up with a reliable source as well. Sounds like a plan?--
1791:
And neither he or she has confirmed it. A source says they were engaged, but it's just hearsay. Until a RS says they he/his rep or her/her rep confirms it, it's gossip.
816:
she is notable for being George Clooney's girlfriend. If she wasnt, most of the reliable sources wouldnt talk about her. 3 of the sources arent even reliable. She fails
182:
2059:(if any will be reported by the news media). Maybe its not interesting, but can we have a view of the rest of the panel? Plus, I agree, it is an encyclopedia, but even
581:
141:
82:
1401:
is known for bias and fraud in things like politics, science, medicine, and celebs. I wouldn't trust them under any circumstance. They're also a liberal equivalent of
148:
294:
762:
Even if her only claim to fame was as George Clooney's fiancé (and it's not) she would be notable due to the press coverage that she has received, including the
220:
2032:
they visit or party they go to? It's supposed to be an encyclopedia. And why is this discussion taking place here. It should be on the article's talk page. --
409:
1083:
So, lets assume that every source is unreliable, then whats the point of Knowledge (XXG), if in your opinion if a source makes a single mistake, its no-no?--
2029:
A trip to Tanzania? It's not encyclopedic and it's not even interesting. I'm just wondering if you are going to include information about every restaurant
1912:
1746:
1681:
to John Kerry with all her films, although wait, she deserves an article because she is an actress, although not as famous as George Clooney, I guess.--
1603:
is because they often distort things with their political bias. There are non-distorting sources with political leans which are quite reliable, such as
219:
Article was deleted at AfD, recreated, speedy re-deleted, and brought to deletion review. Bringing it back to AfD now as an administrative action, per
1565:
Even if its used on articles relating to conservatives themselves, like the members of the Republican Party? I personally wasn't surprised when I saw
883:
comes from (probably from the lack of research)? I personally doubled the amount of refs, so I don't know where does the above editor come from with
1916:
337:-- well sourced already with credible claims of notability, and it's not WP:CRYSTAL to note that more sources are bound to appear very shortly. --
584:
in 2005. At that time Kate Middleton had absolutely no notability in her own right, but it was decided that press coverage made her notable. -
2190:
joke, and should have taken with a grain of salt rather then criticism). I don't criticize Sparkzilla for being blocked two years ago, do I?--
1511:
Knowledge (XXG), why we can't blacklist them? Besides, Fox News although biased is used on many conservative-related articles, starting from
942:
Dailymail - unreliable source, New York Daily News - unreliable source, Us Weekly - unreliable source, Radar Magazine - unreliable source
796:
626:
561:
114:
109:
17:
118:
2199:
2164:
2144:
2129:
2115:
2101:
2087:
2073:
2041:
2007:
1989:
1971:
1950:
1932:
1906:
1884:
1865:
1850:
1835:
1805:
1786:
1762:
1716:
1690:
1667:
1652:
1638:
1620:
1590:
1560:
1540:
1490:
1476:
1458:
1435:
1414:
1393:
1365:
1344:
1314:
1261:
1247:
1238:
Well, you got me on the Daily Mail, but then why it wasn't blacklisted??? By the way, can you give me links regarding the rest?--
1233:
1172:
1152:
1132:
1113:
1092:
1076:
1053:
1031:
1009:
973:
956:
932:
871:
854:
837:
808:
775:
754:
630:
593:
565:
524:
500:
481:
463:
446:
421:
401:
380:
363:
346:
326:
306:
285:
270:
253:
230:
66:
1941:. However, it doesn't add to notability. Those other links don't add to notability either. They only quote anonymous "sources".
1870:
For the record, I'm fine with the wording "According to her law firm". However, them celebrating their engagement isnt notable.
850:
101:
984:, magazines and tabloids (newspapers) are considered to be RS. As a matter of fact even Knowledge (XXG) articles on them say:
203:
1893:
isn't reliability, it's a concern of content. The problem with "according to a London law firm" is that it doesn't give the
1750:
170:
1339:
900:
545:
Alamuddin (according to media reports) has been supported by information from trusted sources such as legal judgments.
2230:
40:
1295:
846:
713:
1148:
520:
511:: Looking at the info already given and well-sourced in the Wiki article and in her resume at the website of her
496:
164:
1219:
about stopping use of the Daily Mail. I think any magazine that calls itself a gossip source is not reliable.
240:
status. The other argument by those who supported the deletion was that she was borrowing her notability from
539:
1920:
622:
557:
1044:, news media coverage, like CNN, Fox News, ABC, etc, and People Magazine, as the only RS in your opinion.--
614:
549:
160:
57:
keep arguments, there is no point in keeping this AfD open any longer, so boldly closing. Non-admin close.
2111:
2083:
1985:
1946:
1902:
1846:
1782:
1712:
1648:
1616:
1556:
1410:
1361:
1257:
1168:
1109:
1072:
1027:
969:
867:
266:
1290:(e.g. the Economist, New Statesman, and Spectator) and the BBC. I think we would all agree that they are
845:. Satisfies the GNG through extensive substantial coverage. The "motive" for the coverage is irrelevant.
821:
788:
2226:
1486:
1454:
1310:
912:
750:
589:
36:
618:
573:
553:
210:
2159:
2140:
2037:
1995:
1879:
1800:
1663:
1301:
1228:
1144:
951:
832:
741:
664:
650:
516:
492:
459:
442:
376:
342:
1604:
1574:
1381:
1377:
771:
512:
319:
299:
196:
105:
1823:
1041:
249:
227:
52:. As this AfD is now 10 days old and there have been no new replies in 2 days, I am going to be
2107:
2079:
1981:
1942:
1898:
1842:
1778:
1708:
1644:
1612:
1552:
1505:
1406:
1357:
1334:
1253:
1164:
1105:
1068:
1023:
965:
916:
863:
804:
692:
657:
417:
397:
359:
262:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2225:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
577:
53:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2195:
2125:
2097:
2069:
2003:
1967:
1928:
1861:
1831:
1758:
1686:
1634:
1586:
1536:
1482:
1472:
1450:
1431:
1421:
1389:
1306:
1243:
1128:
1088:
1062:
make sources unreliable, I for one strongly discourage sources that are notorious for bias.
1049:
1005:
928:
792:
787:. I also have little doubt that none of this attention would have occurred without Clooney.
746:
720:
606:
585:
176:
62:
1955:
1464:
895:: 2 coverages, New York Daily News: 2 coverages, People Magazine: 3 coverages, followed by
817:
784:
2179:
2171:
2153:
2136:
2049:
2033:
1873:
1817:
1794:
1736:
1678:
1659:
1353:
1222:
945:
908:
826:
643:
455:
438:
434:
372:
338:
1291:
981:
1573:
RSs, to me its like, big deal. He is a conservative, the source is too. Same thing with
1524:
2060:
1512:
767:
734:
727:
706:
241:
97:
72:
1516:
1373:
245:
224:
1608:
1520:
1329:
800:
699:
678:
413:
393:
355:
1577:, saw it being used at the same article more then 3 times (6 I think). What about
135:
2191:
2121:
2093:
2092:
Trip to Tanzania though is different, or its considered to be not news either?--
2065:
1999:
1963:
1924:
1857:
1827:
1754:
1682:
1630:
1582:
1566:
1532:
1468:
1427:
1385:
1284:
1239:
1124:
1084:
1045:
1001:
924:
474:
58:
473:
meets gng and rs. She has recurring accomplishments and is thus not just news.
1959:
985:
888:
685:
280:
992:
and take a note of the establishment date too: 1896. And New York Daily News
1578:
1141:
896:
671:
640:. These are courtesy pings to notify all the participants at the first AfD (
1707:
Please see WP:WAX for how the Alexandra Kerry is not relevant to this AfD.
1294:, so if they discuss her and her career then it will establish notability.
1742:
1674:
1570:
892:
1161:
WP:GOOGLEHITS is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions per WP:ATA
371:
Dont want to beat a dead horse, she is notable prior to the engagement.
763:
1826:
suggests otherwise. Take a look at the title, or its another gossip?--
2056:
1980:, but again that source just contains input from unnamed "sources".
1841:
Not sufficient to verify engagement, provides no explicit evidence.
1380:
are not an RS. If you will convince me, I will substitute them with
862:
per lack of independent coverage from reliable third-party sources.
1911:
Well, Lady Lotus doesn't mind it, RS is RS. Further question, is
1018:
has also been repeatedly declared unreliable at WP:RSN. Sales do
2219:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1356:
care to provide an analysis of the refs used or should I do so?
1741:
I don't know where the gossip is from but removing RSs such as
980:
Not true. Don't know where you got that from but according to
1040:
did I? From as far as I can tell, according to you, an RS is
1643:
Not sure, but that isn't the focus for this AfD per WP:WAX.
315:
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions
996:. I don't know about magazines, but according to you, only
994:
is the fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in USA
904:
582:
the deletion discussion for Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
791:
shows the difficulty WP has in dealing with such matters.
1673:
CNN or ABC a whole lot, unless they are being invited by
1372:
I think you should give me a link where it says that the
745:) who don't appear to have !voted/commented here yet. -
990:
United Kingdom's second biggest-selling daily newspaper
435:
http://newslines.org/blog/wikipedia-is-not-a-newspaper/
131:
127:
123:
1014:
What!? "Reliable tabloid" is essentially an oxymoron.
580:
pushes her over the line. It's instructive to look at
195:
88:
Articles for deletion/Amal Alamuddin (2nd nomination)
1215:involving the unreliability of the Daily Mail, and
390:
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions
209:
540:Bar Directory Search for Miss Amal Ramzi Alamuddin
221:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2014 April 28
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2233:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1629:refs on every conservative related article????--
1252:It has been blacklisted on WP:ALBUM/SOURCES.
8:
1745:is unacceptable. As far as engagement goes,
1022:equate to reliability. It's just marketing.
795:has had six discussions with three deletes (
408:Note: This debate has been included in the
388:Note: This debate has been included in the
313:Note: This debate has been included in the
293:Note: This debate has been included in the
1956:Is trip to Tanzania and Seychelles any good
295:list of People-related deletion discussions
1302:I'm on Knowledge (XXG), get me out of here
407:
387:
312:
292:
2106:Depends on what happens during the trip.
1962:, People is much more reliable I think.--
1519:and his gang of biased reporters such as
223:. I offer no opinion on the outcome. --
1142:http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b042cq8p
919:: 1 each. That's more then enough for a
410:list of Law-related deletion discussions
1994:O.K. I added CNN and The Chronicle, is
1937:Again, reliability isn't a problem for
847:The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo)
80:
1625:Then explain me why am I seeing those
1917:this considered to be notable content
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
83:Articles for deletion/Amal Alamuddin
1547:Not exactly, I also wouldn't trust
79:
24:
1405:in terms of bias and distortion.
799:), and is currently a blue link.
1551:, which is highly conservative.
1140:brings up many results such as:
1000:is an RS and the rest is BS???--
1481:No, I'm just mucking about :-)
964:is also not a reliable source.
879:I don't know where are all the
1976:Definitely more reliable than
1595:The reason why I wouldn't use
1:
2055:breakfast, lunch, dinner and
1923:double-ref the engagement?--
1773:is definitely reliable, but
1328:. Notability seems clear. --
1099:That's very oversimplified.
885:lack of independent coverage
572:Welcome to Knowledge (XXG),
1445:the Delete !voters herself—
605::Thank you for the welcome
2250:
578:the volume of recent press
1998:is considered reliable?--
1155:00:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
2222:Please do not modify it.
2200:13:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2165:11:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2145:04:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2130:04:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2116:04:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2102:04:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2088:04:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2074:03:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2042:03:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
2008:03:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1990:02:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1972:02:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1951:02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1933:02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1907:02:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1885:02:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1866:02:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1851:01:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1836:01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1806:01:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1787:01:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1763:01:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
1717:15:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1691:14:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1668:05:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1653:02:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1639:02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1621:01:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1591:01:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1561:00:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1541:00:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1491:08:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1477:02:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1459:01:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1436:00:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1415:00:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1394:00:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
1366:23:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1345:23:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1315:20:28, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1262:20:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1248:20:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1234:20:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1173:01:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
1133:19:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1114:19:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1093:19:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1077:19:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1054:18:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1032:18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
1010:18:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
974:18:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
957:18:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
933:17:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
872:14:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
855:13:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
838:13:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
809:10:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
776:09:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
755:08:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
631:13:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
594:06:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
503:00:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
67:19:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1463:O.K. This is bordering
1153:12:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
566:21:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
525:13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
501:12:29, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
482:04:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
464:02:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
447:01:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
422:22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
402:22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
381:19:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
364:19:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
347:19:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
327:16:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
307:16:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
286:16:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
271:10:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
254:05:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
231:02:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
1569:article carry up to 3
1527:. Care to explain the
820:and notability is not
339:Michael Scott Cuthbert
78:AfDs for this article:
1919:? Also, should I use
1296:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
913:The Irish Independent
714:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
1996:Sunshine Coast Daily
1384:, a no-brainer RS.--
1627:highly conservative
1607:(conservative) and
1605:The Daily Telegraph
1575:The Huffington Post
1382:The Huffington Post
1378:New York Daily News
1042:The New York Times
907:, Radar Magazine,
2163:
2143:
2040:
1897:of the law firm.
1889:The problem with
1883:
1804:
1771:Los Angeles Times
1666:
1465:assume good faith
1447:but which one...?
1232:
1213:this conversation
955:
917:The New York Post
836:
634:
617:comment added by
569:
552:comment added by
462:
445:
424:
404:
345:
329:
309:
2241:
2224:
2183:
2175:
2162:
2156:
2151:
2139:
2053:
2036:
1958:? Like, its not
1882:
1876:
1871:
1821:
1803:
1797:
1792:
1740:
1662:
1515:and ending with
1509:
1425:
1342:
1337:
1332:
1288:
1231:
1225:
1220:
954:
948:
943:
835:
829:
824:
793:John Schlossberg
744:
738:
731:
724:
717:
710:
703:
696:
689:
682:
675:
668:
660:
654:
647:
633:
611:
568:
546:
479:
458:
441:
341:
324:
322:
304:
302:
214:
213:
199:
151:
139:
121:
48:The result was
34:
2249:
2248:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2231:deletion review
2220:
2177:
2169:
2158:
2152:
2047:
1878:
1872:
1815:
1799:
1793:
1734:
1679:Alexandra Kerry
1601:Huffington Post
1503:
1419:
1399:Huffington Post
1340:
1335:
1330:
1282:
1227:
1221:
1145:David.Baratheon
950:
944:
909:The Independent
891:: 4 coverages,
887:. Take a look:
877:Keep and Period
860:Delete and Salt
831:
825:
742:Unscintillating
739:
732:
725:
718:
711:
704:
697:
690:
683:
676:
669:
665:David.Baratheon
662:
661:) and the DRV (
655:
651:Johnpacklambert
648:
641:
612:
547:
517:Zipor haNefesch
493:David.Baratheon
475:
320:
318:
300:
298:
261:per sourcing -
156:
147:
112:
96:
93:
76:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2247:
2245:
2236:
2235:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2061:Angelina Jolie
2027:
2026:
2025:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1513:George W. Bush
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1369:
1368:
1348:
1347:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1211:There is also
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1117:
1116:
1101:New York Times
1080:
1079:
1038:opinion corner
977:
976:
936:
935:
874:
857:
840:
811:
778:
757:
635:
599:
598:
597:
596:
542:
534:
533:
527:
505:
504:
485:
484:
467:
466:
450:
449:
426:
425:
405:
384:
383:
366:
349:
331:
330:
321:Rhododendrites
310:
301:Rhododendrites
289:
288:
273:
256:
242:George Clooney
217:
216:
153:
98:Amal Alamuddin
92:
91:
90:
85:
77:
75:
73:Amal Alamuddin
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2246:
2234:
2232:
2228:
2223:
2217:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2188:
2181:
2173:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2161:
2155:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2099:
2095:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2062:
2058:
2051:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1930:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1881:
1875:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1856:reliable???--
1854:
1853:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1819:
1807:
1802:
1796:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1738:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1525:Bill O'Reilly
1522:
1518:
1517:Rush Limbaugh
1514:
1507:
1502:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1374:New York Post
1371:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1343:
1338:
1333:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1303:
1297:
1293:
1286:
1281:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1230:
1224:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1065:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
979:
978:
975:
971:
967:
963:
962:New York Post
960:
959:
958:
953:
947:
941:
938:
937:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
882:
878:
875:
873:
869:
865:
861:
858:
856:
852:
848:
844:
841:
839:
834:
828:
823:
819:
815:
812:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
779:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
758:
756:
752:
748:
743:
736:
729:
722:
715:
708:
701:
694:
687:
680:
673:
666:
659:
652:
645:
639:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
608:
604:
601:
600:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
570:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
543:
541:
536:
535:
531:
528:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
487:
486:
483:
480:
478:
472:
469:
468:
465:
461:
457:
452:
451:
448:
444:
440:
436:
431:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
406:
403:
399:
395:
391:
386:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
365:
361:
357:
353:
350:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
332:
328:
323:
316:
311:
308:
303:
296:
291:
290:
287:
283:
282:
277:
274:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
226:
222:
212:
208:
205:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
162:
159:
158:Find sources:
154:
150:
146:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
89:
86:
84:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
64:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2221:
2218:
2186:
2108:XXSNUGGUMSXX
2080:XXSNUGGUMSXX
2028:
1982:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1977:
1943:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1939:Star Tribune
1938:
1899:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1894:
1891:Star Tribune
1890:
1843:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1814:
1779:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1774:
1770:
1733:
1709:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1645:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1626:
1613:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1609:The Guardian
1600:
1596:
1553:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1548:
1528:
1521:Sean Hannity
1506:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1446:
1407:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1402:
1398:
1358:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1325:
1300:
1254:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1165:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1106:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1100:
1069:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1063:
1058:
1037:
1024:XXSNUGGUMSXX
1019:
1015:
997:
993:
989:
966:XXSNUGGUMSXX
961:
939:
920:
884:
880:
876:
864:XXSNUGGUMSXX
859:
842:
822:WP:INHERITED
813:
789:WP:INHERITED
780:
759:
693:Chris Howard
658:XXSNUGGUMSXX
637:
619:LemonSugar21
613:— Preceding
602:
574:LemonSugar21
554:LemonSugar21
548:— Preceding
529:
508:
488:
476:
470:
429:
368:
351:
334:
279:
275:
263:David Gerard
258:
236:
218:
206:
200:
192:
185:
179:
173:
167:
157:
144:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1611:(liberal).
1567:Dick Cheney
1483:Pointillist
1451:Pointillist
1422:Pointillist
1307:Pointillist
921:speedy keep
747:Pointillist
721:Crisco 1492
607:Pointillist
586:Pointillist
281:Hasdi Bravo
183:free images
2180:Sparkzilla
2172:Lady Lotus
2154:LADY LOTUS
2137:Sparkzilla
2050:Sparkzilla
2034:Sparkzilla
1978:Daily Mail
1960:Daily Mail
1874:LADY LOTUS
1818:Lady Lotus
1795:LADY LOTUS
1737:Lady Lotus
1660:Sparkzilla
1449:Spooky. -
1354:Lady Lotus
1223:LADY LOTUS
1059:Daily Mail
1016:Daily Mail
986:Daily Mail
946:LADY LOTUS
889:Daily Mail
827:LADY LOTUS
644:Lady Lotus
456:Sparkzilla
439:Sparkzilla
373:Kanatonian
2227:talk page
1921:this link
1747:look here
1579:USA Today
897:Us Weekly
768:JASpencer
735:JASpencer
728:Snalwibma
707:Popeye191
414:• Gene93k
394:• Gene93k
37:talk page
2229:or in a
1824:this ref
1777:is not.
1743:ABC News
1675:The View
1597:FOX News
1571:Fox News
1549:FOX News
1403:FOX News
1292:reliable
1217:this one
893:ABC News
627:contribs
615:unsigned
562:contribs
550:unsigned
513:Chambers
246:Fsmatovu
225:RoySmith
142:View log
39:or in a
1531:here?--
940:Comment
801:Thincat
781:Comment
764:Radio 4
700:Bracton
679:Thincat
638:Comment
603:Comment
538:called:
356:Edwardx
189:WP refs
177:scholar
115:protect
110:history
54:WP:BOLD
2192:Mishae
2122:Mishae
2094:Mishae
2066:Mishae
2057:orgasm
2000:Mishae
1964:Mishae
1925:Mishae
1858:Mishae
1828:Mishae
1822:Well,
1775:Mirror
1755:Mishae
1683:Mishae
1631:Mishae
1583:Mishae
1533:Mishae
1469:Mishae
1428:Mishae
1386:Mishae
1285:Mishae
1240:Mishae
1125:Mishae
1085:Mishae
1064:People
1046:Mishae
1002:Mishae
998:People
925:Mishae
915:, and
881:delete
818:WP:GNG
814:Delete
785:WP:GNG
530:Delete
477:Valoem
430:Delete
343:(talk)
228:(talk)
161:Google
119:delete
59:Safiel
2187:keeps
2141:talk!
2038:talk!
1664:talk!
1305:). -
982:WP:RS
686:WilyD
460:talk!
443:talk!
204:JSTOR
165:books
149:Stats
136:views
128:watch
124:links
16:<
2196:talk
2176:and
2160:TALK
2126:talk
2112:talk
2098:talk
2084:talk
2070:talk
2004:talk
1986:talk
1968:talk
1947:talk
1929:talk
1915:and
1913:this
1903:talk
1895:name
1880:TALK
1862:talk
1847:talk
1832:talk
1801:TALK
1783:talk
1759:talk
1751:here
1749:and
1713:talk
1687:talk
1649:talk
1635:talk
1617:talk
1599:and
1587:talk
1557:talk
1537:talk
1529:O.K.
1523:and
1487:talk
1473:talk
1455:talk
1432:talk
1411:talk
1390:talk
1376:and
1362:talk
1326:Keep
1311:talk
1258:talk
1244:talk
1229:TALK
1169:talk
1149:talk
1129:talk
1110:talk
1089:talk
1073:talk
1050:talk
1028:talk
1006:talk
970:talk
952:TALK
929:talk
868:talk
851:talk
843:Keep
833:TALK
805:talk
797:here
772:talk
760:Keep
751:talk
672:TJRC
623:talk
590:talk
558:talk
521:talk
509:Keep
497:talk
489:Keep
471:Keep
418:talk
398:talk
377:talk
369:Keep
360:talk
352:Keep
335:Keep
317:. —
297:. —
276:Keep
267:talk
259:Keep
250:talk
237:Keep
197:FENS
171:news
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
63:talk
50:keep
1753:.--
1581:?--
1467:.--
1336:ncr
1020:NOT
923:!--
901:IBT
437:--
325:|
305:|
211:TWL
140:– (
2198:)
2157:•
2128:)
2114:)
2100:)
2086:)
2072:)
2006:)
1988:)
1970:)
1949:)
1931:)
1905:)
1877:•
1864:)
1849:)
1834:)
1798:•
1785:)
1761:)
1715:)
1689:)
1651:)
1637:)
1619:)
1589:)
1559:)
1539:)
1489:)
1475:)
1457:)
1434:)
1413:)
1392:)
1364:)
1341:am
1331:do
1313:)
1260:)
1246:)
1226:•
1171:)
1163:.
1151:)
1131:)
1112:)
1091:)
1075:)
1052:)
1030:)
1008:)
988:;
972:)
949:•
931:)
911:,
905:E!
903:,
899:,
870:)
853:)
830:•
807:)
774:)
753:)
629:)
625:•
592:)
564:)
560:•
523:)
499:)
420:)
412:.
400:)
392:.
379:)
362:)
284:•
269:)
252:)
191:)
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
65:)
2194:(
2182::
2178:@
2174::
2170:@
2124:(
2110:(
2096:(
2082:(
2068:(
2052::
2048:@
2002:(
1984:(
1966:(
1945:(
1927:(
1901:(
1860:(
1845:(
1830:(
1820::
1816:@
1781:(
1757:(
1739::
1735:@
1711:(
1685:(
1647:(
1633:(
1615:(
1585:(
1555:(
1535:(
1508::
1504:@
1485:(
1471:(
1453:(
1430:(
1424::
1420:@
1409:(
1388:(
1360:(
1309:(
1287:,
1283:@
1256:(
1242:(
1167:(
1147:(
1127:(
1108:(
1087:(
1071:(
1048:(
1026:(
1004:(
968:(
927:(
866:(
849:(
803:(
770:(
749:(
740:@
737:,
733:@
730:,
726:@
723:,
719:@
716:,
712:@
709:,
705:@
702:,
698:@
695:,
691:@
688:,
684:@
681:,
677:@
674:,
670:@
667:,
663:@
656:@
653:,
649:@
646:,
642:@
621:(
588:(
556:(
519:(
495:(
416:(
396:(
375:(
358:(
265:(
248:(
215:)
207:·
201:·
193:·
186:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
163:(
155:(
152:)
145:·
138:)
100:(
61:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.