540:, as in angel hair pasta. Maybe someday someone following Knowledge (XXG) poicies on notability and sourcing can make a case for the UFO term to have a separate article under a different name, but glancing at the link provided by Colonel Warden above, it's going to be a tough sell, as most of the books that come up seem to be pretty iffy-sourcing wise, and the quotes that come up in the text of the books found do not seem to suggest it has much overall notability to stand alone as an article separate from miscellaneous Forteana. Just existing as a real term in limited usage within a specific field alone does not a Knowledge (XXG) article make.
1807:
show coverage in fringe sources. The article needs adjustment in tone to indicate the nature of this. As someone very much dedicated to the idea that the
Scientific point of view on the world is only sensible one, I would hope to see full coverage here of every alleged UFO-related phenomenon. Such presentation serves the educational purpose of demonstrated the nature of the nonsense. I think the correct title is Angel hair (UFO phenomenon). I am truly startled by the extraordinarily non-objective view of some of my scientific colleagues above, that the correct way to expose such stuff is to pretend nobody talks about it.
1627:(which instead simply created a double redirect, which I fixed with a rather testy edit summary). I'm strongly tempted to undo all of the page moves, because it's creating a mess which somebody is going to have to clean up. Moving pages during AFD discussions is not a good idea, especially when there is no consensus to make the page move; in this case, there was no discussion at all about the move to the location chosen. FWIW, I agree with Brewcrewer's intent, but the timing and implementation were sub-optimal, to put it mildly.
1917:. Article should be nudged a bit towards listing the prosaic explanations first and then explaining what UFO theorists propose as possible origin, to avoid the POV that this is really stuff falling from extraterrestrial aircrafts (I doubt that there is any official report anywhere giving any ground to this explanation, I think that they all say stuff about spiders and other explanations). (It could be merged somewhere, but
1679:, which as you can see messed everything up. As for the mid-afd move, I did not think the name of the article was really an issue here. I actually have not !voted at this afd and I have not decided how I will !vote. But I figured, that in any case, the article should be moved. I even though that RAN would agree with my subsequent move. --
1806:
Sufficient sources. I commented on the specifics of why they're sufficient above. It is only necessary to show substantial discussion by books or newspapers, and that;s been shown. The quality of the book or newspapers is irrelevant entirely; when you're dealing with something as fringy as this, you
592:
The first three links you provided are not anywhere near close to a reliable source. Pravda.Ru is like The Weekly World news but online so worse. The first and third are short blips with no information from edutainment sites. The last is
ForteanTimes, which, while fringe, is a reliable source for the
1543:"Multiple independent reliable sources" means more than one, and less than infinity. The number used in the article looks fine to me, if I am performing my math correctly. Don't confuse the truth with reliability. The phenomena doesn't have to real, just the facts verifiable in a reliable source. --
1306:
Then go through the sources one-by-one and tell me what is wrong with each one. Use the same skepticism you would use for any article on a religion. It doesn't haven't be a scientific fact anymore than any other folktale. Sources have to be independent of each other to be "multiple independent", and
1222:
how
Knowledge (XXG) works. If the source is reliable enough for Google News and reliable enough for Google Books, it is reliable enough for Knowledge (XXG), despite denigrating the sources as non-scientific, and fringe. You wouldn't ask a religious article to draw its sources from scientific papers.
388:
Nonsense or not, it's neither unverifiable nor original research. I find plenty of books documenting this, including documenting several possible prosaic explanations of this phenomenon. (Such as page 82 of ISBN 9780520239050, for example.) This isn't something that one person believes, nor is it
1827:
Based upon your comments here and on other articles lately (hope you haven't been following my edits around, as you've appeared in some odd locations lately to revert me) it's clear you have a rather unique personal view of what entails notability. You're certainly entitled to that, but to say that
1458:
on the topic, or even primarily on the topic to be used. attempts to insert this into WP:RS have been rejected by the community. The requirement is substantial coverage, and a chapter of a book is certainly sufficient for that. There also seems to be some serious confusion here between the sort of
1394:
No, it isn't the truth, but it is a personal attack prohibited under
Knowledge (XXG) policy. I'm afraid you misunderstand the use of the blacklist, and the standards of the reliable source policy. Should I set up RichardArthurNorton.com and begin slandering you, it is not presumed reliable until I
1439:
Again, we need multiple reliable sources establishing notability in a non trivial way. Even if we consider that book reliable, it does not give any reason to believe the term is notable enough to carry a
Knowledge (XXG) article in and of itself instead of a subsection of another article. Try lots
775:
Our policies and previous decisions specify how much detail is needed for these kinds of things. In the field in question coverage is slightly above completely trivial, outside the field all references are extremely trivial. There is a differences between using reliable sources to prove that some
1343:
Yes, you said "Pravda.Ru is like The Weekly World news but online so worse", and what reliable source told you that? Or are you engaging in original research? The headlines from Pravda.Ru today are: Russia’s new international role becomes its biggest achievement in 2008; Israel launches massive
1181:
Reliable sources for fringe theories are the published fringe authors and fringe periodicals. So long as there are multiple fringe sources. We don't require articles on religion to provide sources from scientific publications, but sources from their philosophical peers. This article meets every
1738:
As this page is moving way too much, I have move protected the page. Leave the page in one location, because constant moves make it very difficult to track. Once the discussion has closed, the name (if the article is not deleted) can be settled by consensus.
1762:
That's a good idea. The article was called "Angel hair" at the beginning of the discussion, and has also been called "Angel hair (folklore)", "Angel hair (UFO phenomenon)" and "Angel hair (UFO)" in the last couple of days. I've heard the term applied to
1112:, and I think that all of us tend to be aggressive when it comes to caring about Knowledge (XXG). However, nobody here should feel that someone else has gotten the best of them. Keep, delete, merge, whatever happens, it's only a debate.
1256:
is because other sources that are reliable have given coverage to Moses. UFO stuff are not any better. UFO literature is not a reliable source. They can only establish notability if there stuff is given coverage by reliable sources.
1828:
supporters of science on the page aren't being objective is simply wrong, and the claim that our actions are motivated by pretending nobody talks about it is just nonsense. Both statements would seem to be uncivil and violations of
1459:
sourcing that would be necessary to establish this as a real phenomenon, and that which is necessary to establish it as connected with UFOs. The first of course is not met. But even the Pravda article is suitable for the second.
1395:
start spamming it onto articles and get it blacklisted. It is the considered consensus opinion of reasonable people on the reliable sources noticeboard that Pravda.ru is not a reliable source for anything, including this article.
513:
I view this article to see what is the difference between angel hair and linguine, and I get a lot of fringe-theory about UFOs, ectoplasm, and other nonsense stuff? Redirect this to a more appropriate pasta article please.
1891:
We can also add a pseudoscience category, what do you think? I am not worried that people may think that it is a scientific principle, but that category may help. Things from the sky are always in folklore. Remember the
1419:
1237:
No, but you'd expect articles on religious topics to have enough mainstream coverage to demonstrate notability first. If the only thing talking about it are religious works, then it's not notable for an encyclopedia.
1584:. The article is sourced, and more sources could be added. Certainly, I see no reason to redirect "Angel hair (folklore)" to the article about "angel hair pasta". I'm not aware of any folklore involving noodles.
776:
term exists and provided arguments proving notability for a full article. You don't seem tog et that, because you use arguments for the former while concluding the latter. That's not how things have eve worked here.
1059:
I've been following the entire discussion, and although I see strong comments from many of the participants, including you, there is nothing that would be considered a personal attack by one editor against another.
1018:
Hey, don't blame me for asserting he was wrong, DreamGuy told me to re-read it, I did, and he should still be voting keep according to his own statement (this bit: "references must discuss the term in question").
593:
opinions of people on the fringe. But the mention there is extremely brief, and thus is not a "nontrivial" mention as required by notability standards. And, really, if you offered those up as reliable sources you
1874:
Actually I think the Final Report of the
Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects should be regarded as a reliable mainstream source. It has a quite substantial discussion which can be found online.
1959:. The sources provided are more than adequate to demonstrate that the belief in this stuff is a notable phenomenon. There is no requirement to have scientific sources for non-scientific subject.
1832:. People talk about lots of things. Most of them do not get Knowledge (XXG) articles of their own. That's objective, and that's not pretending anything, it's facing facts and following policies.
871:
How about you go read out policies instead of being so uncivil in your assertions that others are wrong? The vote was made appropriately and for reasons that follow
Knowledge (XXG) standards.
1362:
I find it astounding anyone on
Knowledge (XXG) doesn't know that pravda.ru is a trash tabloid site. It's been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and elsewhere a zillion times.
1582:
1204:
That's not how
Knowledge (XXG) works. If you want to start a Fringeopedia and use that as a rule, by all means. We look for reliable and notable sources giving nontrivial coverage.
120:
1421:
By Donald Howard Menzel, Lyle
Gifford Boyd. "Angel Hair, Pancakes etc" appears to be the title of a chapter. There is even a subsection entitled "other varieties of angel hair".
1033:
You don't seem to even be reading what people said and interpreting them whatever way you think will make you sound right in your own head. You should just give that all a rest.
367:
1787:
There are no (UFO) tagged articles under Category:UFO-related phenomena, just (folklore), hence my choice. Rather than invent a new parenthetical, I used the existing one. --
443:
as noted by Blowdart. We're now supporting a ridiculous idea based on a fringe idea? Alien spaceship exhaust falls on people as spiderweb-like ectobooger? Waste of space.
1108:, I would point out that, technically, even "aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict" are considered a violation of
127:
I do not believe there are any reliable sources which indicate enough research on this subject for us to have an encyclopedia article. Much of the article right now is
888:. The presumption that you can and will change another person's "vote" because you assert special authority is disruptive and incivil in itself. Redact your comment.
1376:
And here I called you a vandal, that doesn't make it the truth (pravda in Russian}, just my opinion. When it appears on the Knowledge (XXG) blacklist (our official
1913:
Richard Arthur added enough sources to show that it's sort of notable. I expect wikipedia to have dedicated articles for this sort of obscure stuff, like
1848:
Ah, do you support changing WP:N to mean intrinsic importance? I'd like to do that too, but as an alternative reason for notability, not a replacement.
492:
this nonsense, a subsequent redirect is fine if anyone can find a likely target but this is, to quote Jimbo in another case, abject nonsense on a stick.
649:
seems to come up often enough to be notable to the UFOlogist community, but if nobody outside of one small community has noticed and treated the topic,
1901:
1792:
1650:
1548:
1385:
1349:
1312:
1228:
1187:
993:
949:
758:
1344:
military operation against Gaza Strip; and Military expenditure increases dramatically all over the world. How did you come to your conclusion? --
966:. Your actions here are HIGHLY uncivil, bordering on outright personal attacks. If you keep that nonsense up I'll report you for such violations.
572:
918:
If you don't think Juzhong was being uncivil then you need to reread what he wrote. That kind of attitude gets warnings and leads to blocks.
1520:
Mostly a response to "nobody outside of one small community has noticed and treated the topic". Anyway it's evidence of public interest.
1897:
1788:
1646:
1612:
1544:
1486:
1381:
1345:
1308:
1224:
1183:
989:
945:
754:
733:-- only semi-reliable sources do not go into any detail, and the only ones that have gone into details are horribly unreliable sources.
686:
New sources below and in article push me over. The unmodified title should probably point to the pasta, but that is not an AfD issue. -
645:, which does not discuss the history or provenance of the term, but does mention it as a term that comes up when talking to UFOlogists.
393:
not something that isn't written about at all. I have no access to the book, but commentary on the WWW leads me to believe that even
753:
And they are addressed in detail. How much detail do you expect. It is more than a stub and less than the article on World War II. --
17:
642:
460:
962:
That edit was not vandalism, and labeling it such demonstrates your lack of understanding of the vandalism policy here as well as
1938:. Notable UFO lingo even if nonsense, mentioned in dozens of books. But please rename it to something more specific and redirect
1686:
1264:
803:. Simple mention of the term does not establish notability; references must discuss the term in question to qualify as sources.
1482:
1581:
Regardless of whether one believes that UFOs leave behind residue, this is apparently what it's referred to in those circles
692:
670:
281:
87:
82:
565:
and redirect the main page as above. Useful sources in addition to the one reliable source already quoted in the article:
521:
91:
1983:
36:
1676:
1668:
1624:
562:
397:
has written about this. There are, indeed, sources available for both sides of the "It's just spiderweb." argument.
74:
1104:
Actually, my comment was written before at 17:53 and everything in between came later. It's a heated discussion. To
1716:
140:
1139:. Flying saucers emit something like pixie dust? I do like the pasta. though. A redirect to it would be helpful.
988:, to bring the article back to the point where you voted to delete it, is pure, 100%, unadulterated vandalism. --
314:
1078:
False labely edits vandalism? Someone saying he should go change someone's votes? If not outright violations of
1982:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
480:
195:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1767:
being hung on Christmas trees, but there's not much folklore that I'm aware of outside of the UFO fringe.
570:
568:
157:. I've never heard of this term before in that sense. I would have just redirected without any discussion.
1964:
1926:
1725:
1664:
1616:
1569:
1400:
136:
263:
1968:
1951:
1930:
1905:
1884:
1859:
1841:
1818:
1796:
1776:
1752:
1727:
1695:
1654:
1640:
1593:
1573:
1552:
1529:
1515:
1497:
1470:
1449:
1430:
1404:
1389:
1371:
1353:
1334:
1316:
1298:
1273:
1247:
1232:
1213:
1191:
1173:
1148:
1121:
1099:
1069:
1042:
1028:
997:
975:
953:
927:
913:
897:
880:
866:
852:
830:
816:
785:
762:
742:
716:
697:
675:
631:
610:
583:
549:
524:
505:
484:
452:
431:
410:
382:
357:
320:
288:
248:
234:
199:
181:
144:
56:
1748:
1691:
1636:
1269:
812:
306:
1487:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VcFZltNy-lAC&pg=PA142&lpg=PA142&dq=%22angel+hair%22+ufo
131:
and the term itself seems confined to the Ufological community (not widely enough known to pass our
1914:
1772:
1589:
1117:
1065:
984:
Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism. Deleting verifiable references and additions to an article in
909:
476:
216:
191:
172:
1921:
is already full and it seems that we don't have a separate article for listing UFO phenomena.) --
1289:
I challenge the notion that any sources for this nonsense are either "reliable" or "independent."
558:
1837:
1511:
1445:
1367:
1330:
1243:
1209:
1167:
1095:
1038:
971:
923:
876:
848:
781:
738:
687:
658:
606:
545:
427:
274:
1109:
1083:
1960:
1880:
1525:
1493:
1426:
1024:
893:
862:
826:
712:
518:
448:
406:
244:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
471:
as a separate title. The title Angel hair might be made a dab page and the content moved to
1922:
1720:
1565:
1396:
1294:
1144:
904:
There is nothing uncivil being said here, nor does anyone have to "redact" their comments.
579:
472:
468:
347:
1829:
1087:
1079:
963:
726:
650:
132:
1741:
1681:
1629:
1620:
1259:
805:
641:
per dearth of in depth independent coverage. The AAAS book mentioned above is, I believe,
78:
598:
333:
212:
128:
1947:
1768:
1585:
1182:
criteria for Knowledge (XXG) entry in that is it has "multiple independent sources". --
1113:
1061:
905:
627:
378:
160:
1417:
The World of Flying Saucers: A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age
1160:. The content is either completely original research or unverifiable, take your pick.
1136:
566:
1855:
1833:
1814:
1507:
1466:
1441:
1363:
1326:
1239:
1205:
1161:
1091:
1034:
967:
937:
936:"Leads to blocks" What is the punishment for vandalizing the article as performed by
919:
872:
844:
777:
734:
602:
541:
500:
494:
423:
394:
267:
1876:
1521:
1489:
1422:
1020:
889:
858:
822:
708:
515:
444:
402:
240:
50:
1252:
The Bible is not a reliable source. The only reason why there is an article about
731:""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail"
108:
1893:
1380:) the source is unreliable, until then it is just people's personal opinions. --
1377:
1290:
1140:
575:
339:
1939:
1672:
561:
but there are plenty of reliable publications on this subject. Maybe move to
70:
62:
1943:
1712:
1561:
1157:
800:
654:
623:
537:
440:
419:
374:
329:
301:
297:
154:
1440:
more books, books only about this topic, reliable scientific studies, etc.
1850:
1809:
1461:
1764:
1645:
Double redirects eventually get cleaned up by a maintenance bot. --
1708:
1253:
1976:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
464:
190:
Would you have checked for sources before? Did you just now?
1918:
707:, looking at the sources provided by JulesH, WP:GNG says yes.
239:
Because, quite rightly, no speedy deletion criterion applies.
1481:
Not exactly a RS but it's been discussed in an episode of
389:
something that only one person has written about. It's
985:
941:
215:
and utter nonsense to boot. Why wasn't this CSD'ed? --
115:
104:
100:
96:
857:And then just go ahead and amend the vote to keep?
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1986:). No further edits should be made to this page.
368:list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions
262:to pasta, per suggestion above. This is just
8:
1715:. Perhaps condense and merge the content to
1611:The page move shenanigans are the result of
1415:There are 12 pages matching "Angel Hair" in
422:. Is there a pasta for con trails too? :) --
643:UFO's - a Scientific Debate By Carl Sagan
1454:It is not correct that a book has to be
821:...Mkay. So why aren't you voting keep?
366:: This debate has been included in the
1623:attempting to redirect it instead to
1325:Already went through the ones above.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1082:those are substantial violations of
622:and move - the source is out there!
1613:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1135:Lacks reliable sources, and fails
24:
1663:I screwed up. I intended to move
463:including works published by the
1564:. Pravda as a source? Raelliay?
1483:Alcoa Presents: One Step Beyond
1898:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1789:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1647:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1545:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1382:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1346:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1309:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1225:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1184:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
990:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
946:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
755:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
1942:to the more notable pasta. --
1299:23:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1192:21:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1174:21:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
1149:19:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
853:20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
831:18:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
817:18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
743:20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
717:18:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
676:17:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
632:17:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
611:20:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
584:16:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
550:15:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
525:12:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
506:12:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
485:10:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
453:09:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
432:08:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
411:08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
383:07:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
358:07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
321:06:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
289:06:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
249:08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
235:06:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
200:10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
182:06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
145:05:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
467:. Note that we already have
1969:11:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
1952:14:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
1931:22:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1906:20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1885:21:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1860:04:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
1842:23:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1819:18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1797:19:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1777:18:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1753:17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1728:21:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1696:16:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1677:Angel hair (UFO phenomenon)
1669:Angel hair (UFO phenomenon)
1655:19:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1641:16:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1625:Angel hair (UFO phenomenon)
1594:14:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1574:09:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1553:03:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1530:21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1516:16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1498:02:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1471:18:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1450:01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1431:01:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1405:02:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
1390:00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
1372:16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1354:03:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1335:01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1317:00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1274:06:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1248:16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1233:03:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1214:01:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1122:01:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
1100:23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1070:17:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1043:23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
1029:21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
998:00:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
976:23:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
954:19:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
928:16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
914:14:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
898:07:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
881:16:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
867:02:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
786:16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
763:04:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
698:18:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
563:Angel hair (UFO phenomenon)
57:00:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
2003:
1717:Unidentified flying object
657:if deleted, obviously. -
601:to understand it better.
597:have to go back and read
1979:Please do not modify it.
461:Lots of sources for this
32:Please do not modify it.
1671:, but mistakenly moved
1602:No one would redirect
1665:Angel hair (folklore)
1617:Angel hair (folklore)
843:Reread what he said.
653:says no. Redirect to
1915:Ballooning (spider)
1506:And your point is?
797:Delete and redirect
725:Did you even read
44:The result was
1751:
1639:
815:
696:
674:
666:
662:
504:
385:
371:
334:original research
179:
129:original research
1994:
1981:
1747:
1744:
1689:
1684:
1635:
1632:
1604:
1603:
1267:
1262:
1170:
1164:
811:
808:
690:
668:
665:
661:
498:
473:Angel hair (UFO)
469:Angel hair pasta
372:
362:
355:
354:
350:
346:
342:
313:
286:
279:
272:
232:
229:
224:
221:
180:
175:
169:
168:
163:
137:ScienceApologist
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
2002:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1984:deletion review
1977:
1742:
1736:
1687:
1682:
1630:
1621:User:Brewcrewer
1265:
1260:
1168:
1162:
806:
352:
348:
344:
340:
338:
311:
282:
275:
268:
230:
225:
222:
217:
173:
166:
161:
158:
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2000:
1998:
1989:
1988:
1972:
1971:
1954:
1933:
1908:
1889:
1888:
1887:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1822:
1821:
1800:
1799:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1735:
1734:Move protected
1732:
1731:
1730:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1658:
1657:
1643:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1597:
1596:
1576:
1555:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1501:
1500:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1434:
1433:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1374:
1357:
1356:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1320:
1319:
1301:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1250:
1216:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1151:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1073:
1072:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
979:
978:
957:
956:
883:
836:
835:
834:
833:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
768:
767:
766:
765:
748:
747:
746:
745:
720:
719:
702:
701:
700:
664:
663:
634:
616:
615:
614:
613:
587:
586:
552:
527:
508:
487:
477:Colonel Warden
455:
434:
413:
386:
360:
323:
291:
253:
252:
251:
205:
204:
203:
202:
192:Colonel Warden
185:
184:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1999:
1987:
1985:
1980:
1974:
1973:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1955:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1934:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1909:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1852:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1811:
1805:
1802:
1801:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1745:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1723:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1702:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1690:
1685:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1633:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1615:moving it to
1614:
1610:
1609:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1580:
1577:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1539:
1538:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1463:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1341:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1307:they are. --
1305:
1302:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1268:
1263:
1255:
1251:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1165:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1137:verifiability
1134:
1131:
1130:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1017:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
982:
981:
980:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
960:
959:
958:
955:
951:
947:
943:
939:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
887:
884:
882:
878:
874:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
809:
802:
798:
795:
794:
787:
783:
779:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
764:
760:
756:
752:
751:
750:
749:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
722:
721:
718:
714:
710:
706:
703:
699:
694:
689:
685:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
672:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
639:
635:
633:
629:
625:
621:
618:
617:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
581:
577:
573:
571:
569:
567:
564:
560:
556:
553:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
528:
526:
523:
520:
517:
512:
509:
507:
502:
497:
496:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
475:or similar.
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
456:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
435:
433:
430:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:Terence Hines
392:
387:
384:
380:
376:
369:
365:
361:
359:
356:
351:
343:
335:
332:. Article is
331:
327:
324:
322:
319:
318:
317:
310:
309:
303:
299:
295:
292:
290:
287:
285:
280:
278:
273:
271:
265:
261:
257:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
237:
236:
233:
228:
220:
214:
210:
209:Speedy Delete
207:
206:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:
187:
186:
183:
178:
176:
165:
164:
156:
152:
149:
148:
147:
146:
142:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1978:
1975:
1961:Phil Bridger
1956:
1935:
1919:UFO#Analysis
1910:
1849:
1808:
1803:
1740:
1737:
1721:
1704:
1692:(yada, yada)
1680:
1628:
1578:
1557:
1540:
1460:
1455:
1416:
1303:
1286:
1270:(yada, yada)
1258:
1219:
1178:
1153:
1132:
1105:
886:UNACCEPTABLE
885:
804:
796:
730:
704:
683:
667:
646:
637:
636:
619:
594:
554:
533:
529:
510:
493:
489:
457:
436:
428:
415:
398:
390:
363:
337:
325:
315:
307:
305:
293:
283:
276:
269:
259:
255:
226:
218:
208:
170:
159:
150:
126:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1923:Enric Naval
1894:Yellow rain
1804:Strong keep
1722:Hojimachong
1378:burn notice
1179:Strong Keep
638:Weak delete
1940:angel hair
1743:Horologium
1673:Angel hair
1631:Horologium
1218:But, that
807:Horologium
647:Angel hair
557:. May be
71:Angel hair
63:Angel hair
1911:Weak keep
1896:scare? --
1769:Mandsford
1713:Capellini
1586:Mandsford
1562:Capellini
1158:Spaghetti
1114:Mandsford
1106:everybody
1062:Mandsford
986:this edit
942:this edit
906:Mandsford
801:Capellini
655:Capellini
559:WP:FRINGE
538:Capellini
458:Keep/move
441:capellini
420:Capellini
391:certainly
330:Capellini
302:Spaghetti
298:Capellini
211:Violates
1834:DreamGuy
1705:Redirect
1558:Redirect
1508:DreamGuy
1456:entirely
1442:DreamGuy
1364:DreamGuy
1327:DreamGuy
1240:DreamGuy
1206:DreamGuy
1163:MuZemike
1154:Redirect
1110:WP:CIVIL
1092:DreamGuy
1084:WP:CIVIL
1035:DreamGuy
968:DreamGuy
938:DreamGuy
920:DreamGuy
873:DreamGuy
845:DreamGuy
778:DreamGuy
735:DreamGuy
688:Eldereft
659:Eldereft
603:DreamGuy
542:DreamGuy
534:Redirect
511:Redirect
437:Redirect
424:Blowdart
416:Redirect
326:Redirect
308:Linguist
294:Redirect
264:nonsense
260:Redirect
151:Redirect
121:View log
1877:Juzhong
1541:Comment
1522:Juzhong
1490:Juzhong
1423:Juzhong
1304:Comment
1287:Comment
1021:Juzhong
890:ThuranX
859:Juzhong
823:Juzhong
709:Juzhong
516:Yngvarr
445:ThuranX
403:Uncle G
241:Uncle G
231:umanoid
174:chatter
153:to the
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
1830:WP:AGF
1765:tinsel
1749:(talk)
1688:crewer
1637:(talk)
1566:Nevard
1397:Nevard
1291:Edison
1266:crewer
1141:Edison
1133:Delete
1088:WP:AGF
1080:WP:NPA
964:WP:AGF
813:(talk)
727:WP:GNG
651:WP:GNG
595:really
576:JulesH
530:Delete
490:Delete
256:Delete
133:WP:GNG
116:delete
92:delete
1709:pasta
1254:Moses
693:cont.
671:cont.
620:Keeep
599:WP:RS
501:Help!
316:Large
223:andom
213:WP:OR
155:pasta
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1965:talk
1957:Keep
1948:talk
1944:Itub
1936:Keep
1927:talk
1902:talk
1881:talk
1856:talk
1838:talk
1815:talk
1793:talk
1773:talk
1719:. --
1683:brew
1651:talk
1619:and
1590:talk
1579:Keep
1570:talk
1549:talk
1526:talk
1512:talk
1494:talk
1467:talk
1446:talk
1427:talk
1401:talk
1386:talk
1368:talk
1350:talk
1331:talk
1313:talk
1295:talk
1261:brew
1244:talk
1229:talk
1210:talk
1188:talk
1169:talk
1145:talk
1118:talk
1096:talk
1086:and
1066:talk
1039:talk
1025:talk
994:talk
972:talk
950:talk
944:? --
924:talk
910:talk
894:talk
877:talk
863:talk
849:talk
827:talk
782:talk
759:talk
739:talk
713:talk
705:Keep
684:Keep
628:talk
624:Artw
607:talk
580:talk
555:Keep
546:talk
532:and
481:talk
465:AAAS
449:talk
407:talk
399:Keep
379:talk
375:Artw
364:Note
349:Talk
341:Matt
245:talk
196:talk
162:Nate
141:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
1851:DGG
1810:DGG
1711:or
1707:to
1675:to
1667:to
1560:to
1462:DGG
1156:to
940:in
799:to
536:to
522:(c)
519:(t)
495:Guy
439:to
418:to
370:.
328:to
300:or
296:to
284:ool
277:sch
258:or
1967:)
1950:)
1929:)
1904:)
1883:)
1858:)
1840:)
1817:)
1795:)
1775:)
1653:)
1592:)
1572:)
1551:)
1528:)
1514:)
1496:)
1485:.
1469:)
1448:)
1429:)
1403:)
1388:)
1370:)
1352:)
1333:)
1315:)
1297:)
1257:--
1246:)
1231:)
1223:--
1220:is
1212:)
1190:)
1172:)
1147:)
1120:)
1098:)
1090:.
1068:)
1041:)
1027:)
996:)
974:)
952:)
926:)
912:)
896:)
879:)
865:)
851:)
829:)
784:)
761:)
741:)
729:?
715:)
630:)
609:)
582:)
574:.
548:)
483:)
451:)
426:|
409:)
401:.
381:)
336:.
312:At
304:.
270:Un
266:.
247:)
198:)
143:)
135:.
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
1963:(
1946:(
1925:(
1900:(
1879:(
1854:(
1836:(
1813:(
1791:(
1771:(
1649:(
1588:(
1568:(
1547:(
1524:(
1510:(
1492:(
1465:(
1444:(
1425:(
1399:(
1384:(
1366:(
1348:(
1329:(
1311:(
1293:(
1242:(
1227:(
1208:(
1186:(
1166:(
1143:(
1116:(
1094:(
1064:(
1037:(
1023:(
992:(
970:(
948:(
922:(
908:(
892:(
875:(
861:(
847:(
825:(
780:(
757:(
737:(
711:(
695:)
691:(
673:)
669:(
626:(
605:(
578:(
544:(
503:)
499:(
479:(
447:(
405:(
377:(
373:—
353:)
345:(
243:(
227:H
219:R
194:(
177:)
171:(
167:•
139:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.