1833:
Reuters, there will be stories that will appear on many sites and possibly in many languages like
English, German, Chinese, etc. These stories can range from a devastating earthquake to the first day of spring. On that day, they are both newsworthy, but I can imagine people being interested in the earthquake 1 or 10 years later, but I'm not sure about the second one. Secondary coverage is used as the test for an article's importance not because it is a good test, but only because the alternative (the test of time) is difficult to measure. I personally would like to see wikipedia as an encyclopedia than a news aggregator. As for this article, perhaps it should have started as part of
912:. While I intend to display good faith, my feeling is that your nomination is extremely biased and shows a fundamental lack of consideration and understanding of Knowledge (XXG) policies. Orangemike's reason is a legitimate suggestion but ultimately false and shows a lack of research, considering the many sources in the article which directly contradicts what he says. I urge admins to close this ridiculous nomination and praise the contributors who were able to build a well-cited, well-written and NPOV article for a very sensitive subject, in a very short period. I intend to nominate the article for DYK.
1403:, they're often not talking about Shakespeare's plays as a whole. Which means that R&J has notability and deserves a split, because readers may be seeking information only about Romeo and Juliet. Such is the case. Anti-cnn is not only a controversy about CNN - it has even more information about Der Spielberg. And anti-cnn is only casually related to the 2008 Tibetan unrest, since "bias in western media" is only a small part of the controversies around the 2008 Tibetan unrest. Thus, any merge does not make sense, which logically concludes that anti-cnn has notability on its own.
1735:- the news articles mentioned above only say trivial thing about this subject (the anti-cnn website). The Times even does not mention it at all (I don't know where you found it). The Die Ziet news even says more similar websites appeared only because temporarily angered emotion by some people. Therefore, since this AfD, there's no other major reliable secondary source coverage about this anti-cnn website. It obviously shows non-notability about the website. Yes, there was such historical event where websites were created in the aftermath of
1250:: I removed the speedy tag from this originally, and re-wrote it a number of times to try to make it NPOV after various users kept adding screeds of info. I'm honestly not sure how notable the website actually is; the refs are somewhat passing references, and it smacks a bit of WP:RECENT, but there are definitely 3rd party sources. I don't think it's a Deletion candidate; if it's not kept I would be tempted to go for a merge to the Tibetan unrest article, and then split it out again if it becomes obviously independently notable.
1436:
issues even though that's what it talks about - it is notable enough to be responded to by CNN, which means that it's also quite important among CNN controversies. Do we also include a small section in the CNN article? And in the German newspapers articles? Probably in controversies about media, and in articles about Tibet as a whole? Whether or not we split an article depends on its notability. It certainly has gained much notability on itself, much much more than enough to exist as an article.
1188:. But shouldn't whether or not something is notable depend on its legacy? If the site was just created, it seems a bit too soon to immediately label it as notable. Only time will tell whether or not it is notable and worth an article all by itself. Until then, the site seems specific to the Tibet unrest, so I'm with Dekisugi above. If it expands and critiques other stories besides the Tibet unrest, then maybe it is worth a page by itself.--
1339:. Most of the content says others such as Jin Jing and other trivial mentioning the website by some officials. I repeat again, that at this point the content of this article is not enough to say that the website is notable. Have you looked also to the website directly? Its content is even worse that it only consists of collections of video links to other video hosting websites.
1567:
issue and beyond everyday, and until this day it's still receiving new materials. Whether the action-reaction cycle between Anti-cnn and its targets will end soon and why is an interesting topic with multiple factors to take into consideration, that's why I believe it's way too early to come to your conclusion. Your reasoning to doubt its notability can be applied exactly to
1544:
recently created website played a critical role. The article does not show a significant important role in anything than just a hype. The reaction of media is only temporary, so that's why it's better that the content is placed inside the main article. When it lasts for longer time and the more coverage about the subject (the website,
445:]. The articles say what the website is, and name the website. Hence we can verify that 1. the website exists 2. it does carry Chinese criticism of western media and 3. it is notable enough to have multiple (if short) references to it in established media. Coatrack issues, and style issues are editorial issues not deletion issues.
1509:, but the content is really minimum. The subject (the website) contains links to videos about the Tibetan unrest. Yet, it can only be explained simply by a single paragraph in the main article, that there are websites recently created as the aftermath of the event with the same numerous cited references we saw in this article.
1529:
this site has played a critical role in part of recent evolution of netizen culture , and this alone guarantees its importance. The reactions of some media and organizations, and their attitudes towards its existence, are a relatively indirect, but still incontrovertible assurance of its position in history.
1566:
It's not mainly about tibet unrest so it's irrelevent how much proportion it counts for in THAT issue. You tend to believe that this website is a temprary emotional outburst of some (group of) individual(s), but you fail to see the fact that it hosts a forum with thousands of new posts about related
1528:
tibet unrest, not the event itself, which means it's much more than a simple correction of news details. If you take a closer look you will find that this wiki article, too, centers upon the actions and reactions of different parties, and the unrest is only the background. Cited links 2-4 shows that
1033:
The website is notable because many, many third-party source refers to it by name. Sure, it has often been cited to prove a point, but it's exactly because it has become the vent of discontent that it's notable. No other such website has received such attention. The fact that CNN decided to refer it
765:
I'm not sure. Ta Kung Pao is obviously leftist, but it's not controlled by the PRC. I don't know where those statements come from, and they're uncited. In fact, the TKP website receives more views from North
America than from China, so it is not so much anti-west as pro-china. Still, there are many,
713:
in china, nor does the Anti-cnn site it talks about do anything close to that. It's only about claimed "biase and distortion" in some reports. Big difference. If anyone has really checked cited links 4&5 and then spent a little time on Anti-cnn itself, he will agree with me that there's actually
708:
reactions of chinese goverment---takungpao is a
Hongkong based newspaper group free from government control, xinhua.net is a state owned company but not part of government, and it merely collects the content of TV programs previously broadcasted. CNN and Der Spiegel have certainly nothing to do with
1490:
These two are different issues. I have stated my rationale, and please refrain from making comparisons for the sole purpose of making a judgement on me. If you want to discuss about the split of that article, go to the talk page. The unrest in Tibet is the content of the website, and yet because of
524:
What exactly is your point? You argued that there is no significant coverage, then upon hearing that there is significant coverage, you argue that it still does not constitute notability. Does CCTV, the largest media source in mainland China, not cement its notability by interviewing the website's
1523:
It's funny you choose to focus your argument on some not-so-central points. The wiki policies only apply to wiki articles, not directly to their subjects. I guess it's mainly notability issue that you are concerned, and I think it should not be a problem given all those contents and citations and
1018:
article. About the anti-xinghua, that's exactly what I meant that website is not notable. There might be tens other websites come up later to act and counter-act this whole
Tibetan unrest issue. Who knows more to come? So it's useless to have separate articles for these recently-created websites.
1814:
not notable enought, it seems more like a temporary internet fad and thus does not warrant inclusion. Might warrant inclusion if this website stays popular, but this is highly doubtful. For the moment delete or merge parts of the article with other relevant articles on the
Tibetan unrest or the
1435:
It doesn't matter if it talks from one point of view. Every independent website has one point of view - they're not
Knowledge (XXG), where we have specific policies to include as many points of views as possible and representively. It's completely normal. It's not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest
1832:
In addition to what I earlier said... About something being notable "due to secondary coverage and not because of time", well, perhaps at the heart of the problem is
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. (I hope administrators are reading this...) On any given day, thanks to the Associated Press and
1543:
And? The content is stil barely enough to get a separate article than one paragraph in the main article's section. That's it. It's only a small effect of the whole
Tibetan unrest issue. I don't see that the site is more broad that just a collection of video links. And there's no way that this
1289:- Knowledge (XXG) is not a news service and we cannot have an article about every homepage that monitors media. If this homepage lasts for a couple of years, yes, an article can be created, but as of now, the contents can easily be moved to other articles as have been suggested above.--
525:
creator directly? Of course there are sources which only mention it passingly - it's how every independent movement gained recognition. Devoting a whole article to the website is pointless because it neglects the other parallel movements - much like the case in YouTube phenomenons.
685:. CCTV, the most prominent television network in China, interviewed its creator. The Japanese Sankei Shimbun newspaper is another example of prominent media that is completely about the website. I believe a rewrite is needed in the article, but definitely not deletion.
673:
While a few of the sources are inadequately cited and irrelevant to Anti-cnn, most do refer to Anti-cnn by name and often Anti-cnn is a central theme. Other users advocating deletion here clearly have not bothered to read the sources at all or have no understanding of
180:
is highly relevant here. This article is not really about the website, it is about
Western coverage of Chinese issues, especially Tibet. The linked articles, for example, are not about the website, but about China's government's unhappiness with said news coverage.
1716:] plus there seems to be a very minor news story about the website being unaccesible on the UN HQ computers, all since this AfD. Still no absolute, slam-dunk article exclusively about anti-CNN covering it in vast detail in some major news outlet.
998:
The name is neutral because that's what it's called. I don't understand the rest of your comment. The anti-xinhua website is created in response to the anti-cnn website. The article is and has always been notable itself and should not be merged.
1862:
remains only an essay of opinions, and not a policy or guideline. There's no practical limit on the number of topics WP can cover. And with notability clearly established, there's no reason why the subject does not deserve its own article.
899:
To nom - may I ask how it is an attack page, which you just added as a reason for deletion? Currently, half of the page is devoted to CNN and Der
Spiegel's responses. The rest are mostly quotes and basic information. By every definition it is
714:
an atmosphere of approval for what they call"fair" media coverage, no matter where they come from. As for the content of this page itself I will not accept OrangeMike's assertion that it mentioned Anti-cnn merely as an excuse start irrelavent
821:
I doubt you have not read the page carefully. There's no rant. Almost everything related to those organizations are quotations and the quotations are illustrated by pictures shown on Anti-cnn site, which is included in the cited links.
978:. There's the last statement that anti-xinghua.com website is already made, but we can't keep creating the same articles for each website. So the website maynot be notable but the content is. I think it's better to merge the content to
1756:
It's irrelevent what Der Zeit think it is. The very fact that they noticed it and mentioned it in a published editorial suggests just the opposite of their claim. It's also inappropriate to compare Anti-cnn with some sites set up
542:
But if CNN, The Wshington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Der Spiegel and goodness knows how many other diverse major news outlets where all name-checking you and your blog, then yup, your blog would be notable. This blog isn't
1357:.) What established the website as notable is that numerous mainstream news sources have mentioned it by name and discussed it. If the article poorly presents the subject matter, then it needs clean-up, not deletion.
488:
that no original research is needed to extract the content. There is a website, it is called Anti-CNN, it does cover Chinese critcism of Western media coverage. All of that is easily verified from reliable third party
1571:
itself, especially the time span and subject coverage part, for what are now under heated discussion is not what happened in those couple of days, but underlying deeper issues. May be you should suggest merging it to
1310:... err... have you seen the size of that article? It's already very bloated and it's only going to get bigger. Now, this website has been discussed in numerous mainstream news sources. It's obviously notable.
1013:
The content is notable, but the website is not. That's why I said it should be merged in the main article I said above. The whole thing can only be written in a section in the main article. Otherwise it looks like a
442:
Well the CNN article does refer to the website by name and refer to the allegations made by the website. Likewise the Der Spiegel article. There has also be coverage on the SBS tv channel website in Australia
1335:- Yes I read the article. It is bloated to another issues other than the subject itself. It is like advocating the website itself rather than an encyclopaedia article about the subject. The subject is about
751:: "has been funded by the government of the People's Republic of China since 1949. Widely regarded as the mouthpiece of Communist Party of China". It is definitely not free from government control.
883:. Only the glaring Western-centric bias of Knowledge (XXG)'s editor force would even let this approach AfD. Coverage from multiple secondary news sources gives notability and verifiability.
465:""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial..."
1225:. Although there are news articles reporting this specific website, but it does not guarantee this website will still get coverage in the coming months. A good essay about this is
125:
1353:
It is not for us to judge personally whether or not a website is "good" enough for an article. It doesn't matter if it's only a collection of videos. (I present to you:
418:; the article ostensibly about the website is being used as an excuse to discuss these issues. There is little or no substantial coverage of the website, certainly none in
48:; consensus is that the site is notable due to extensive substantial coverage by reliable independent sources, most of which have been added to the article during the AfD.
1468:
Oh one more thing about your opinion here. It's funny to see you advocate keep for this small article where the content is barely enough to have a separate article where
1775:
Anti-cnn is a website about particular event: the Tibetan unrest. That's what the reliable sources say, unless if you have other reliable sources that say otherwise.
1573:
1377:
Yes, and sometimes articles need merging, splitting and redirecting. At the moment, the current article does not need a split article from the main ones, say it the
1229:. If this website becomes a significant historical entity, then I'm sure we will have a separate page here. The true significant event is the Tibetan unrest itself.
230:
1635:
issues here, but I think they can be fixed. With regard to notability, it seems just barely established. (And I think better links can be found further establish
414:
articles about the website; they are articles about the Chinese government's objections to western coverage of China-related issues. This is the definition of a
1052:. In the coming months people forget and the website is going to be just another spark of media hype. Per its title, there is also another place to merge in
1761:
some historical events, because it's not about any particular event, but the underlying biase and misunderstanding as a whole, and that is a broader issue.
1590:
And I dont think WP:SOAP fits here: there is nothing original to advocate, not here, not on that website, but only fact based comment on existing opinions.
1399:
When people talk about anti-cnn, are they necessarily talking about the 2008 Tibetan unrest or the CNN controversies? No. It's like, when people talk about
1226:
613:. But this article does have some relevant information about Chineses' reaction to foreign criticisms about China and Tibet. Perhaps it can be merged to
1789:
Anti-cnn is about western reports on the Tibetan unrest, not the event itself. That's what reference links 2-7 say every time they mention this site.
1858:. This is why WP's notability guideline has no rule on so-called "legacy" or the length of time of a subject's notability, and it's why, I suspect,
766:
many other reliable sources, second-party or third-party, which talks about anti-cnn, so the problem over WP:SOURCE and WP:N has never been there.
787:
Per Orangemike. And Knowledge (XXG) articles cannot be used to serve as a rant against organizations let alone calling it lies and distortions.
1469:
645:
625:
342:
1139:
17:
1936:
837:
737:
377:
The article was originally speedy deleted (by me), as it was nothing but an unsupported attack on news stations - essentialy libel.
360:
May I ask under which criteria do you suggest it for speedy deletion? As far as I am concerned, WP:SOAP is not a legitimate reason.
950:
I second : The website has notability and references. Let's just make sure it remains. Can people stop pointlessly deleting pages!
507:. Nobody is disputing that the website exists; so does my talkpage, and my blog. But neither my blog nor my talkpage is notable. --
1873:
1473:
1367:
1320:
1095:
273:
246:
215:
1085:— lack of attributability and notability are — but it may make it more difficult to judge whether notability actually exists."
205:. And apparently it is a notable topic, having been referred to by CCTV, CNN, Der Spiegel, and the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
1081:
is not policy and not even a guideline. It's just an essay. A collection of opinion. And even the essay itself states, "
1505:
It's different debates but similar issue, and you gave different views. The article we're debating here is separated from
1454:. How do you know that the website is not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest while you said it is the content of the website?
299:- so the article does have reliable third party sources. Possibly some clean-up is required but that is a seperate issue.
1491:
its content it also related itself with other topics. This is common sense and I don't want to have to explain it again.
1105:
I didn't say to delete the article. I'd say the content should be merged to the main article and redirect this to there.
1929:
92:
87:
1958:
36:
96:
201:- Article is written in an NPOV manner, covering views from opposing sides, so I don't see how it is in violation of
1138:
Perfectly fine article. I understand it's been edited due to POV concerns. I'm sure people will keep an eye on it.
709:
chinese government, and certainly not unreliable sources. Secondly its does not contain critism of western media
650:
630:
79:
1957:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1820:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
637:
05:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I decide to hold onto my !vote for now since I want to give this article a chance.
1721:
1694:
564:
494:
450:
346:
312:
304:
825:
725:
1277:
1162:
1143:
1915:
1794:
1766:
1595:
1581:
1534:
852:
833:
733:
1855:
1632:
682:
675:
610:
552:
415:
177:
1869:
1363:
1316:
1251:
1091:
1057:
792:
639:
619:
614:
514:
474:
429:
269:
242:
211:
188:
163:
149:
1549:
1157:
Absolutely no hint of personal opinion, and the content is backed up by wide coverage and sources.
141:
1940:
1919:
1900:
1878:
1846:
1838:
1834:
1824:
1816:
1798:
1784:
1770:
1748:
1736:
1725:
1698:
1681:
1669:
1650:
1599:
1585:
1568:
1561:
1538:
1518:
1506:
1500:
1485:
1463:
1445:
1430:
1418:
1412:
1394:
1378:
1372:
1348:
1325:
1307:
1298:
1281:
1269:
1256:
1238:
1216:
1197:
1189:
1176:
1167:
1147:
1118:
1100:
1073:
1043:
1028:
1008:
991:
979:
966:
959:
942:
921:
891:
868:
841:
816:
796:
775:
760:
741:
694:
657:
594:
568:
534:
519:
498:
479:
454:
434:
397:
369:
350:
333:
316:
278:
251:
220:
193:
167:
61:
57:
1859:
1492:
1437:
1404:
1106:
1078:
1049:
1035:
1000:
913:
808:
767:
686:
526:
361:
1896:
1842:
1780:
1744:
1717:
1690:
1557:
1514:
1481:
1459:
1426:
1390:
1354:
1344:
1234:
1214:
1193:
1114:
1069:
1034:
by name is an example of how notable it is, as compared to the other websites that may spawn up.
1024:
987:
889:
864:
560:
490:
446:
329:
308:
300:
1290:
548:
1707:
1496:
1441:
1408:
1382:
1273:
1265:
1158:
1053:
1039:
1004:
917:
812:
771:
690:
530:
365:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1061:
1015:
975:
909:
202:
133:
49:
1911:
1790:
1762:
1591:
1577:
1530:
1400:
955:
938:
829:
729:
1888:
1884:
1222:
930:
905:
856:
804:
504:
156:
1864:
1358:
1311:
1294:
1086:
1060:
section as one or two paragraphs with tons of cite news. The content is really bloated as
788:
606:
508:
468:
423:
390:
264:
237:
206:
182:
159:
145:
971:
419:
1678:
1204:
Things are considered notable due to secondary coverage, not because of time. See the
53:
1636:
1205:
704:
I feel called to rectify some of the words OreangeMike chose. The cited links 2-5 are
460:
137:
1892:
1776:
1740:
1665:
1553:
1510:
1477:
1455:
1452:
It's not only about 2008 Tibetan unrest issues even though that's what it talks about
1422:
1386:
1340:
1230:
1209:
1110:
1065:
1020:
983:
884:
860:
325:
83:
1706:
the website is still clocking up more minor refernces on news.google. A mention in
1640:
307:) 04:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC) + Multiple hits in a wide range of major news outlets.
113:
678:. Anti-cnn has undisputedly gained significant notability on its own and this is
1048:
No, the website is not notable. It is referred by many at this point because of
951:
934:
756:
748:
296:
588:
384:
1712:
1180:
I'm not an expert on wikipedia policy, but some people have used terms like
1891:. Please read Rayjapan above. It's really a good argument for this debate.
929:
The website has notability and references. Let's just make sure it remains
1660:
75:
67:
1524:
extensive reading materials given. The Anti-cnn site was a response to
803:"lies and distortations" is in quotes and is perfectly legitimate. See
408:
to Hong Qi Gong and Nick Connolly - if you follow the links, they are
1658:
there do seem to be sufficient sources, such as the Washington Post.
752:
263:: Xinhua News, World Tribune, SBS, and the PRC Embassy in the US.
1837:
in the first place and moved out if it stood the test of time. --
722:
discussion, only discriptions and (to be improved) cited links.
381:
in its current format it is most certainly not speedy deletable.
1951:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1854:- I'd like to point out that WP is not a paper encyclopedia -
292:
1548:) is available, then we can have a separate article it here.
1083:
Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion
1739:. Doesn't it enough to write there in a single paragraph?
1910:
not notable, at most can be merged with other articles.
1421:
issues? And worse it talks only from one point of view.
261:
120:
109:
105:
101:
52:
issues, if any, can probably be fixed through editing.
260:- I've added four links to the External Links section
1109:
is a good essay because we're not journalists here.
1227:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper
291:The website appears notable with coverage by both
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1961:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1574:Human rights in the People's Republic of China
1306:- To the editors that have voted to merge to
8:
1058:2008 unrest in_Tibet#Aftermath and appraisal
231:list of China-related deletion discussions
1927:Enough references constitute notability.
1689:Not really notable enough at the moment.
555:are issues but they are editorial issues
229:: This debate has been included in the
807:. There is no rant - please elaborate.
1264:This is an important section for both
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1417:Doesn't the website only talk about
484:yes...and the sources are in detail
24:
970:- The content is notable and has
1550:Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox
1474:2008 Summer Olympics torch relay
1546:not the content of the website
1476:section about protests issue.
1:
974:but the article's name isn't
503:But that doesn't constitute
1472:for a very long section in
1978:
1941:19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1920:00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
1901:09:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1879:06:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1847:05:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1825:00:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
1799:17:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1785:11:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1771:07:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1749:01:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1726:00:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1699:16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
1682:07:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1670:03:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1651:01:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1600:18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1586:18:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1562:16:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1539:15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1519:12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1501:12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1486:10:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1464:10:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1446:09:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1431:09:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1413:09:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1395:09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1373:09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1349:08:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1326:00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1299:23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1282:17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1257:16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1239:15:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1217:15:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1198:14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1168:11:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1148:11:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1119:09:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1101:09:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1074:08:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1044:08:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1029:14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1009:11:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
992:10:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
960:08:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
943:07:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
922:07:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
892:07:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
869:07:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
842:06:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
817:06:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
797:06:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
776:07:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
761:07:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
742:05:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
718:, because there is simply
695:05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
658:06:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
595:04:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
569:05:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
535:05:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
520:05:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
499:05:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
480:05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
455:05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
435:04:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
398:07:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
370:06:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
351:04:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
334:04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
317:05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
279:04:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
252:03:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
221:03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
194:03:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
168:06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
154:03:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
62:20:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1470:you advocated don't split
1954:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1931:Otolemur crassicaudatus
857:Single Purpose Account
1815:Olympic torch relay.
1206:notability guidelines
1056:. Put it there or in
853:User talk:Helloterran
324:- as per OrangeMike.
1677:as notable. Thanks,
615:2008 unrest in Tibet
136:, with questionable
1835:2008 Tibetan unrest
1737:2008 Tibetan unrest
1569:2008 Tibetan unrest
1507:2008 Tibetan unrest
1419:2008 Tibetan unrest
1379:2008 Tibetan unrest
1308:2008 Tibetan unrest
1270:2008 Tibetan unrest
1177:2008 Tibetan unrest
980:2008 Tibetan unrest
967:2008 Tibetan unrest
617:or somewhere else.
1830:Additional comment
1355:The Hampster Dance
603:Merge or Weak Keep
1877:
1383:CNN controversies
1371:
1324:
1268:, as well as the
1266:CNN controversies
1165:
1099:
1054:CNN controversies
871:
844:
828:comment added by
747:From our article
744:
728:comment added by
586:per OrangeMike.--
559:deletion issues.
396:
277:
254:
250:
234:
219:
1969:
1956:
1932:
1889:WP is what it is
1867:
1648:
1645:
1401:Romeo and Juliet
1361:
1314:
1163:
1089:
972:reliable sources
861:X Marks The Spot
855:appears to be a
847:
823:
723:
656:
653:
648:
642:
636:
633:
628:
622:
593:
591:
517:
511:
477:
471:
432:
426:
420:reliable sources
395:
393:
382:
267:
240:
235:
225:
209:
191:
185:
123:
117:
99:
44:The result was
34:
1977:
1976:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1959:deletion review
1952:
1930:
1646:
1641:
655:
651:
646:
640:
638:
635:
631:
626:
620:
618:
609:with regard to
607:User:Orangemike
601:Delete or Merge
589:
587:
537:(edit conflict)
515:
509:
475:
469:
430:
424:
391:
383:
189:
183:
119:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1975:
1973:
1964:
1963:
1946:
1944:
1943:
1922:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1849:
1827:
1817:Dassiebtekreuz
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1733:also a comment
1729:
1728:
1701:
1684:
1672:
1653:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1588:
1466:
1329:
1328:
1301:
1284:
1259:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1201:
1200:
1171:
1170:
1151:
1150:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
995:
994:
962:
945:
924:
894:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
800:
799:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
698:
697:
661:
660:
644:
624:
597:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
540:
539:
538:
403:
402:
401:
400:
354:
353:
336:
319:
281:
255:
223:
196:
130:
129:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1974:
1962:
1960:
1955:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1926:
1923:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1875:
1871:
1866:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1850:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1831:
1828:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1755:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1731:
1730:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1718:Nick Connolly
1715:
1714:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1691:Lord of Light
1688:
1685:
1683:
1680:
1676:
1673:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1662:
1657:
1654:
1652:
1649:
1644:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1626:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1570:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1369:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1327:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1302:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1213:
1212:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1160:
1156:
1153:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1097:
1093:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
996:
993:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
968:
963:
961:
957:
953:
949:
946:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
925:
923:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
898:
895:
893:
890:
888:
887:
882:
879:
878:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
845:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
801:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:Strong Delete
783:
777:
773:
769:
764:
763:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
745:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
721:
717:
712:
707:
703:
700:
699:
696:
692:
688:
684:
681:
677:
672:
670:
667:
663:
662:
659:
654:
649:
643:
634:
629:
623:
616:
612:
608:
604:
602:
598:
596:
592:
585:
582:
581:
570:
566:
562:
561:Nick Connolly
558:
554:
550:
546:
541:
536:
532:
528:
523:
522:
521:
518:
512:
506:
502:
501:
500:
496:
492:
491:Nick Connolly
487:
483:
482:
481:
478:
472:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
447:Nick Connolly
444:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
433:
427:
421:
417:
413:
412:
407:
399:
394:
388:
387:
380:
376:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
355:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
320:
318:
314:
310:
309:Nick Connolly
306:
302:
301:Nick Connolly
298:
294:
290:
287:
286:
282:
280:
275:
271:
266:
262:
259:
256:
253:
248:
244:
239:
232:
228:
224:
222:
217:
213:
208:
204:
200:
197:
195:
192:
186:
179:
175:
174:Strong delete
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
158:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
127:
122:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1953:
1950:
1945:
1928:
1924:
1907:
1865:Hong Qi Gong
1851:
1829:
1811:
1758:
1754:more comment
1753:
1732:
1703:
1686:
1674:
1659:
1655:
1642:
1628:
1545:
1525:
1451:
1359:Hong Qi Gong
1336:
1332:
1312:Hong Qi Gong
1303:
1286:
1274:TheAsianGURU
1261:
1252:
1247:
1210:
1186:encyclopedic
1185:
1181:
1174:
1159:PeterSymonds
1154:
1140:86.44.28.245
1135:
1087:Hong Qi Gong
1082:
964:
947:
931:encyclopedic
926:
901:
896:
885:
880:
848:
784:
719:
715:
710:
705:
701:
679:
668:
665:
664:
600:
599:
583:
556:
547:notable and
544:
485:
464:
410:
409:
405:
404:
385:
378:
374:
357:
338:
321:
288:
284:
283:
265:Hong Qi Gong
257:
238:Hong Qi Gong
226:
207:Hong Qi Gong
198:
173:
153:
131:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1912:Novidmarana
1885:WP:NOT#NEWS
1856:WP:NOTPAPER
1791:Helloterran
1763:Helloterran
1633:WP:COATRACK
1592:Helloterran
1578:Helloterran
1531:Helloterran
1223:WP:NOT#NEWS
1136:Strong Keep
948:Strong keep
906:attack page
881:Speedy keep
830:Helloterran
824:—Preceding
749:Ta Kung Pao
730:Helloterran
724:—Preceding
702:Strong Keep
683:WP:COATRACK
676:WP:COATRACK
611:WP:COATRACK
605:mainly per
553:WP:COATRACK
510:Orange Mike
470:Orange Mike
425:Orange Mike
416:WP:COATRACK
339:Weak Delete
297:Der Spiegel
289:Strong Keep
184:Orange Mike
178:WP:COATRACK
132:Definitely
1711:], and in
1631:There are
1526:reports on
1450:You said:
1253:Black Kite
1221:True, but
789:Merumerume
505:notability
160:Beidabaozi
146:Beidabaozi
142:WP:SOURCES
1883:And also
1860:WP:RECENT
1713:The Times
1679:SqueakBox
1629:Weak keep
1337:a website
1175:Merge to
1107:WP:RECENT
1079:WP:RECENT
1050:WP:RECENT
965:Merge to
54:Sandstein
1893:Dekisugi
1874:Contribs
1839:Rayjapan
1777:Dekisugi
1741:Dekisugi
1708:Die Ziet
1554:Dekisugi
1511:Dekisugi
1478:Dekisugi
1456:Dekisugi
1423:Dekisugi
1387:Dekisugi
1368:Contribs
1341:Dekisugi
1321:Contribs
1231:Dekisugi
1211:Celarnor
1190:Rayjapan
1111:Dekisugi
1096:Contribs
1066:Dekisugi
1021:Dekisugi
984:Dekisugi
886:Celarnor
838:contribs
826:unsigned
738:contribs
726:unsigned
711:coverage
549:WP:UNDUE
489:sources.
459:Re-read
341:per nom
326:Xdenizen
274:Contribs
247:Contribs
216:Contribs
144:issues.
126:View log
76:Anti-cnn
68:Anti-cnn
1852:Comment
1704:comment
1576:first.
1493:Herunar
1438:Herunar
1405:Herunar
1304:Comment
1248:Comment
1182:notable
1062:WP:FORK
1036:Herunar
1016:WP:FORK
1001:Herunar
976:neutral
914:Herunar
910:WP:SOAP
897:comment
809:Herunar
768:Herunar
716:discuss
687:Herunar
527:Herunar
406:comment
379:However
362:Herunar
358:comment
258:Comment
203:WP:SOAP
134:WP:SOAP
93:protect
88:history
50:WP:SOAP
1908:Delete
1812:Delete
1687:Delete
1647:figura
1287:Delete
952:Chendy
935:Triwbe
908:, nor
805:WP:MOS
669:Speedy
666:Strong
641:Chris!
621:Chris!
584:Delete
486:enough
322:Delete
157:WP:ATP
121:delete
97:delete
1925:Keep:
1333:Reply
1291:Amban
590:RyRy5
392:Chat
386:Pedro
124:) – (
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1937:talk
1916:talk
1897:talk
1870:Talk
1843:talk
1821:talk
1795:talk
1781:talk
1767:talk
1745:talk
1722:talk
1695:talk
1675:Keep
1666:talk
1656:Keep
1639:).
1637:WP:N
1596:talk
1582:talk
1558:talk
1535:talk
1515:talk
1497:talk
1482:talk
1460:talk
1442:talk
1427:talk
1409:talk
1391:talk
1364:Talk
1345:talk
1317:Talk
1295:talk
1278:talk
1262:Keep
1235:talk
1194:talk
1184:and
1164:talk
1155:Keep
1144:talk
1115:talk
1092:Talk
1070:talk
1040:talk
1025:talk
1005:talk
988:talk
956:talk
939:talk
933:. --
927:Keep
918:talk
865:talk
849:Note
834:talk
813:talk
793:talk
772:talk
757:talk
734:talk
691:talk
671:keep
565:talk
551:and
545:very
531:talk
516:Talk
495:talk
476:Talk
461:WP:N
451:talk
431:Talk
422:. --
375:Note
366:talk
347:Talk
330:talk
313:talk
305:talk
295:and
285:Keep
270:Talk
243:Talk
227:Note
212:Talk
199:Keep
190:Talk
164:talk
150:talk
140:and
138:WP:N
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
46:keep
1759:for
1661:DGG
1381:or
1208:.
904:an
902:not
851:--
706:not
680:not
557:not
513:|
473:|
428:|
411:not
343:BoL
293:CNN
233:.
187:|
1939:)
1918:)
1899:)
1887:.
1872:-
1845:)
1823:)
1797:)
1783:)
1769:)
1747:)
1724:)
1697:)
1668:)
1598:)
1584:)
1560:)
1552:.
1537:)
1517:)
1499:)
1484:)
1462:)
1444:)
1429:)
1411:)
1393:)
1385:.
1366:-
1347:)
1319:-
1297:)
1280:)
1272:.
1237:)
1196:)
1161:|
1146:)
1117:)
1094:-
1072:)
1064:.
1042:)
1027:)
1007:)
990:)
982:.
958:)
941:)
920:)
867:)
859:.
840:)
836:•
815:)
795:)
774:)
759:)
740:)
736:•
720:NO
693:)
567:)
533:)
497:)
467:--
463::
453:)
389::
368:)
349:)
332:)
315:)
272:-
245:-
214:-
181:--
176:-
166:)
152:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1935:(
1914:(
1895:(
1876:)
1868:(
1841:(
1819:(
1793:(
1779:(
1765:(
1743:(
1720:(
1693:(
1664:(
1643:B
1594:(
1580:(
1556:(
1533:(
1513:(
1495:(
1480:(
1458:(
1440:(
1425:(
1407:(
1389:(
1370:)
1362:(
1343:(
1323:)
1315:(
1293:(
1276:(
1233:(
1192:(
1142:(
1113:(
1098:)
1090:(
1068:(
1038:(
1023:(
1003:(
986:(
954:(
937:(
916:(
863:(
832:(
811:(
791:(
770:(
755:(
753:F
732:(
689:(
652:t
647:c
632:t
627:c
563:(
529:(
493:(
449:(
364:(
345:(
328:(
311:(
303:(
276:)
268:(
249:)
241:(
236:—
218:)
210:(
162:(
148:(
128:)
118:(
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.