1359:—I've added English titles to the citations that lacked them, which might help a bit in evaluation. I think what could push this over for me to a full Keep would be to flesh out the statement "...and develop it to a new medical-use project called "Abdali Medical Center", the first of its kind in Jordan." In other words, what makes this facility the first of its kind in the country; that is not made clear and without that this might be considered just another hospital. By the way "just another hospital" is not a support for delete - if I had by druthers, I'd have an article for every hospital as they are vital pieces of infrastructure wherever they are located. I know, though, that flies in the face of Knowledge norms, so I'll just dream on and color just a bit out of the lines from time to time. --User:Ceyockey (
1536:
GNG (but doesn't pass NCORP) are illogical and flawed and really only demonstrates that an editor does not understand how to interpret the guidelines. I have pointed out above that none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (pointing to NCORP as the guidelines that best explain why) and have been met with vague arguments that the references meet GNG and therefore NCORP is irrelevant. I simply request that the Keep !voters simply provide a link to 2 references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP/GNG which, to date, none of the references are anything other than PR and
1576:, yup, don't disagree with any of that. But there's a little bit of dis-ingenuousness going on with that argument. The arguments that "it passes GNG therefore NCORP doesn't matter" is deliberately trying to ignore years of experience of interpreting sources used to establish the notability of companies/organizations. NCORP exists to assist editors interpret GNG in relation to articles on companies/organizations/etc. It doesn't add any new criteria or "raise the bar". So .. same question .. can you link to any two references that meet NCORP or GNG, same thing, doesn't matter.
1559:, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Knowledge is not policy." The key word, for me, is "or". The subject-specific criteria exists to allow subjects which are notable but do not meet GNG criteria. I do not believe they exist to raise the GNG bar higher, if an article passes GNG then its ability to pass any other is not relevant.
1069:, I have not "repeated this recommendation on a *separate* *bulleted* line". I have already had this format cleared by another admin some time ago and this is only the second time in years that someone has said it is "confusing". There doesn't appear to be anything in the guidelines to say that it shouldn't/can't be done. Personally, I think it adds clarity to the nomination. That said, I acknowledge that not many others do this. I'll have a rethink but if there are sufficient objections in the future, I'll drop it.
978:? Your nomination says "The hospital doesn't even exist yet (TOOSOON) and the building is still under construction" which is clearly not true. The nomination statement is false - please fix it ... and also remove the "delete" which makes it look as though you are trying to vote on your nomination, and has already created confusion! The article has been improved since you nominated, the sources currently there, and also provided in this dicussion meet GNG.
1263:
930:
787:
686:
444:, three of the sources are in Arabic, one is local news from Philadelphia about a company who helped construct the building, and the other four are industry periodicals. The hospital is now open, so there could be more in-depth coverage on the number of beds (many thousands of American hospitals are in the 209-bed-neighborhood due to regulatory restrictions), types of medical practice patient care (
466:; it's been struggling with delays for over a decade. As a hospital, it's just not notable; please convince me that it's notable for another reason, or find more recent English-language sources. I tried a Yahoo search as well, and found no evidence it had actually opened. In fact, according to their own website, it's still hiring staff to be able to open. See also
797:). Significant coverage is checked as all of the articles discuss only the hospital; multiple independent, reliable and secondary sources is also checked considering they were reported in Alghad, Addusour and Al-Rai; independent, semi-governmental and governmental newspapers who also happen to be the most circulated newspaper in Jordan.
996:, I'm not sure if updating a nomination is allowed but I've struck the piece about the hospital not existing as you are correct to point out that this isn't true. I always add "Delete" to my nominations and while I accept it is not done by very many nominators, it is not in breach of any guidelines. Finally, none of the sources meet
924:
The nomination statement is false - the references are clear that the hospital opened at least a couple of months ago, therefore TOOSOON doesn't apply. The only delete vote says that there's no indications on how many beds there are, though the sources do mention there are over 200 beds, and that the
858:
I've no doubt they are "credible sources". But is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. No attributed journalists means those references are highly questionable as reliable sources for supporting facts within the article, never mind using them to establish notability which is a
1253:
NCORP is just as relevant as GNG and arguably more so. An article cannot be said to pass GNG and fail NCORP because they're both based on the exact same principles. NCORP provides additional clarity on sources that may be used to establish notability. Also, check out the Talk page at AFDFORMAT where
1158:
No. Both are guidelines and GNG does not take precedence over NCORP. In fact, NCORP and GNG are the same thing, just that NCORP provides specific guidelines on how to apply policies and also assists by providing interpretations and clarification specific to ascertaining the notability of sources for
1113:
I didn't get a chance to respond before you collapsed this part. You've totally misrepresented that thread. Softlavender was being a dick (as is evident from the thread and from
Floqeunbeam's comments) and took it upon themselves to modify my nomination without bothering to ask and then took over my
1759:
Two more !votes but I've the same simple request as I've made since the start ... where are the references? Ceyockey's references have been shown to be churnalism and PR. It is odd that nobody seems to be able to post a link to any two that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability.
1535:
There's quite a bit of discussion above about the so-called irrelevance of NCORP and how GNG somehow supercedes it. This is incorrect. Both are guidelines and both are based on the exact same principles. There is nothing in NCORP that is new to GNG. Arguments along the lines that a reference passes
1178:
I disagree. There are multiple sources that are independent of the topic. GNG is met. Yes, there appear to be some churning of press releases in some of the references - but with 11 references in the article, that's not the sum total of the references. Does some of the text in some of the articles
1095:
about this, where two different people asked you to stop doing this. Please don't dig in your heels on this. The goal in all communication is to be clear about your intent. You've got multiple people telling you that what you're doing is confusing, and you're wiki-lawyering whether the existence
461:
claimed the hospital, with 200 beds, was set to open in July 2019, which contradicts the other source that said the lights weren't even expected to be turned on until August 26 at the earliest. Again, this is a small hospital in the grand scheme of things; there's no evidence in the artricle or
1226:
NCORP is irrelevant - GNG suffices. You are twisting my words; me acknowledging that some of the 11 references in the article have partially used press releases, doesn't contradict that there's enough there to meet GNG. Our guidelines/policies have been met, with the possible exception of
1231:. I'm not sure why you are making false statements that I haven't pointed to any sources specifically. And I'm unsure why you haven't yet edited the original nomination to remove the misleading, bolded, delete in the nomination statement, in clear breach of the guidelines at
705:
925:
sources aren't in
English - which is not a policy-based concern. I can't imagine a 34-story hospital wouldn't be notable in any city. There are multiple good sources in the article, meeting GNG. The combination of these three references alone is very compelling to me -
1491:
While there is debate as to other criteria this article may or not meet, it seems clear that the article, as it stands, passes GNG. GNG is the bar articles require for notability. I concur, and originally closed it as such but the nominator requested it be reopened.
1638:
is without any value if you don't demonstrate what sources you found; i.e., they are empty buzzwords. I checked for available sources and found none that were sufficient to demonstrate independent notability. If you claim that there are some - present them here for
448:
nursing practices), etc. Right, now there is just not enough information about the patient services -- as opposed the building design, parking decks, number of floors, and related information. MILL isn't a policy, but it's a guideline that I cite frequently as a
763:
658:
781:
680:
1255:
1114:
talk page with a rant. Floq then said I was "probably" wrong but NA1000 said "It's all right to have the word "delete" in bold in the nomination header". That was 2 years ago in 2017. Now you say I'm wiki-lawyering and digging my heels in??? Please.
926:
859:
higher standard again for references. As has been pointed out above for those references, the *content* fails the criteria for establishing notability. You may assume that none here are questioning the bona fides of the publisher.
518:
1514:. It is superseded by GNG. Admittedly, I am no expert in Arabic. But, while not stellar, the sources do appear reliable, secondary, and mention the subject in detail. Through the lens of GNG, IMHO, the subject meets criteria.
1333:
can you read that discussion at AFDFORMAT and think that you aren't off base on this issue? How is this not a snow keep - there hasn't been anyone here that agrees with you in a month. The only person who supported delete was
1203:(without pointing to any specifically - can you point to some please?) but then go on to admit that they're "churning of press release". Therefore the *content* is not independent (which is clarified/explained in NCORP's
228:
1437:
I removed it (and not
Highking) thinking it was puffery but it was actually meant to reflect one of the claims in the article that the hospital is unique in offering patient-centered care. I added that in the article.
87:
1416:—I didn't object to the sentence, and it does not improve the article by removing it. I'd rather see the question it raises answered rather than making the article's subject seem even less notable. --User:Ceyockey (
958:
Eh .. no. The nomination statement also says "Not a single reference in the article meets the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and
775:
674:
1310:
It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and it is not excluded under the What
Knowledge is not policy.
569:
Abdali
Medical Center, the new multidisciplinary hospital in Amman, has started receiving Jordanian and non-Jordanian patients and offering a wide range of medical specialties and services with affordable
818:
963:". And "multiple good sources in the article, meeting GNG" has been shown to *not* be the case above (unless you meant to rebutt what was said above about the sources but you hit "Publish" too early?)
1651:
Note to closer: The HighKing just pinged another editor to this debate (Elmidae)...why the ping? Note to HighKing you should leave it to the participants to determine notability. It is a small group
1052:
Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.
1000:
which are the guidelines for corporations/organizations as I have noted above. If you can link to any two references that you believe meet the criteria, post them below and lets see them.
566:بدأ مركز العبدلي الطبي؛ المستشفى الجديد متعدد التخصصات في عمان، باستقبال المرضى الأردنيين وغير الأردنيين وتقديم مجموعة واسعة من التخصصات والخدمات الطبية مع الرعاية الصحية بأسعار مناسبة.
374:. First off, other than a construction accident, there's nothing encyclopedic or even newsworthy about this brand new hospital. It's a relatively tall building, but there's not even any
1667:. This is incorrect and it has been pointed out to you. The fact that you can ping those who agree with you only means the system is not fair, and it is only an unfair local consensus.
661:
is based on an announcement of an intention to build a hospital and doesn't even mention the name, relies entirely on information from the mayor with no
Independent Content, fails
1781:
I only added
English translations for the Arabic titles of the extant citations; I have not added any citations myself (had to check to make sure :-) ). Regards --User:Ceyockey (
744:
612:
181:
82:
222:
265:
Not a single reference in the article meets the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria. Topic fails GNG and
282:
424:, "at least 8 different sources discussing the hospital at length" does not mean that there are any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per
896:
302:
188:
798:
322:
1254:
you can see that my nomination is, in fact, not in clear breach of any guidelines. Finally, I don't know why I haven't commented on the references previously.
723:
as per NCORP guidelines. In summary, not a single new reference added to the article comes even close to meeting the requirements for establishing notability.
648:
1179:
follow the press releases a bit too closely in an restrictive undemocratic closed society with a highly-controlled media ... surely that goes without saying.
769:
766:
does indeed name the hospital: Clemenceau
Medical Center. It was renamed later. The article does have independent content as can be seen in the last sentence.
668:
622:
454:
829:). Some people don't seem to be able to tell the difference between churnalism/PR/announcements and the requirement for Independent Content (as defined by
128:
1092:
113:
1054:
What you're doing is indeed confusing, and in fact, was one of the things that led me astray when I originally closed this. Please don't do that. --
154:
149:
747:
source was not used in the article and the fact that it depended on the
Venture Magazine's text does not make the Venture article any less credible.
158:
1473:
a subject that meets GNG. An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.
721:
original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
1159:
companies. If NCORP hasn't been met, then GNG hasn't been met either as that would be impossible. None of the sources meet NCORP, specifically
141:
1790:
1766:
1736:
1721:
1676:
1646:
1612:
1582:
1568:
1546:
1523:
1501:
1483:
1447:
1425:
1404:
1379:
1368:
1347:
1321:
1276:
1244:
1217:
1188:
1169:
1149:
1120:
1107:
1075:
1061:
1006:
987:
969:
950:
914:
865:
853:
839:
810:
729:
591:
547:
531:
493:
479:
434:
410:
387:
356:
334:
314:
294:
274:
66:
683:
is based on the same announcement of "ready to receive patients" as the previous
Venture articles and others, fails for the same reasons.
1510:
I wanted to expand my !vote after discussion with the nom. At the time, I did not look at the article's notability through the lens of
1464:
756:
is again not copied from anywhere. MENAFN is a news aggregator, and the fact that it translated Alghad's article does not undermine
243:
601:
Many additional sources have been added to this article since the AfD started. None meet the criteria for establishing notability.
210:
821:
that the Venture magazine article (and others) faithfully reproduces or is largely based on. Also, the criteria for hospitals is
793:
The criteria for hospital articles notability are: significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable and secondary sources (
677:
is also the same as the Venture article (and more tellingly, clearly marks it as a "press release"), fails for the same reasons.
401:
GNG is established as there are at least 8 different sources discussing the hospital at length. MILL is not a Knowledge policy.
825:
since it is a company/organization. This article is spam and Knowledge is not a platform for promotion not a Yellow Pages (see
484:
Starting to treat patients is not an indication of notability. Plus, citations to non-English sources is allowed on Knowledge.
108:
101:
17:
457:, the building was set to turn on its solar electric grid last week; there's no indication of a single patient being treated.
844:
Either way, Alghad, Alrai and Addustour remain to be credible sources that belong to the three leading newspapers in Jordan.
671:
has no attributed journalist and is churnalism, a virtual copy of the earlier article in Venture, fails for the same reasons.
574:
562:
538:
Again, how can a hospital that has not treated a single patient be notable? Can we find a translation of the local news?
204:
122:
118:
1207:
section in great detail, but not so much in GNG). And while your opinion that due to this company being located in a
1714:
884:
506:
1258:
is based on an announcement/interview by the Vice Chairman of the Center and is therefore not "independent" fails
200:
1809:
60:
40:
708:
is a article about an accident during construction of the building and doesn't even mention this company, fails
145:
1652:
1730:
I'll have to borrow that word ... niff- nawing ... I never saw it before but it is a lovely word, thank you.
1338:, who hasn't spoken up in over a month. Have their views stayed the same, now that the article has improved?
250:
743:
does not depend on this alleged press release. No text in the article matches a text from a press release.
137:
72:
1228:
1097:
750:
The renewables source is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the hospital should have an article.
719:
Seriously, are editors not able to tell blatant churnalism, company announcements and press releases from
1805:
1708:
1443:
1400:
849:
806:
587:
489:
406:
352:
36:
1373:
If that quote appears in a source and is not simply parroting a press release then I'd agree with you.
1672:
1608:
1556:
1317:
347:
Hospital has been operational since July 2019. I have added other sources to supplement the article.
54:
693:) and is churnalism, contains the same stock phrasing we've seen in the other press releases, fails
647:) and is another classic example of churnalism (even has the same photo, language and quotations as
615:
with no indication of any Independent Content. The article is a thinly-disguised PR piece and fails
1232:
1047:
709:
698:
630:
330:
310:
290:
236:
216:
1784:
1419:
1362:
1104:
1058:
528:
740:
604:
458:
1479:
937:. The article references have been significantly improved since the AFD started; there's some
794:
543:
475:
383:
97:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1804:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1742:
1695:
1635:
1631:
1597:
1564:
1519:
1497:
1439:
1396:
1259:
1204:
1160:
845:
830:
802:
694:
662:
652:
634:
616:
583:
485:
467:
441:
419:
402:
348:
753:
640:
263:
The hospital doesn't even exist yet (TOOSOON) and the building is still under construction.
1668:
1660:
1656:
1604:
1511:
1343:
1313:
1240:
1184:
1145:
997:
983:
960:
946:
822:
425:
266:
1702:'s niffnawing about the quality of the sources is just an interminable distraction and a
1655:
who come to these AfDs however you repeat the same mantra in every demand for deletion -
629:
issue), is based on a company announcement and is a mere mention-in-passing, fails both
905:
371:
326:
306:
286:
1776:
1761:
1731:
1699:
1664:
1641:
1601:
1577:
1541:
1460:
1432:
1411:
1390:
1374:
1330:
1303:
1271:
1212:
1164:
1115:
1101:
1070:
1066:
1055:
1041:
1001:
975:
964:
938:
860:
834:
826:
724:
525:
429:
367:
342:
269:
1625:
1475:
1335:
690:
644:
626:
539:
471:
463:
396:
379:
375:
175:
1703:
1691:
1573:
1560:
1515:
1493:
1267:
1266:
is also based on an announcement and fails for the exact same reasons. Finally,
934:
1537:
1339:
1236:
1180:
1141:
993:
979:
942:
608:
1745:, who at the time was a Wayne County Circuit Judge. He went on to become a
1140:
I'm not claiming that NCORP has been met - it's irrelevant once GNG is met.
450:
464:
no reliable sources since they contradict each other and they look sketchy
760:'s credibility. Arab newspapers rarely attribute articles to journalists.
1211:
provides for an exception, this is not part of our guidelines/policies.
757:
1209:
restrictive undemocratic closed society with a highly-controlled media
1463:. I find Highking's argument unconvincing. Here is a relevant Quote:
1659:. You also mistakenly say that articles need to jump two hurdles,
1096:
of a piece of punctuation is significant or not. This seems like
517:
I had originally closed this as delete, but per the discussion on
1800:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
521:, I'm backing out my close and relisting this for another week.
559:
887:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
509:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
88:
Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center (2nd nomination)
1741:
I first encountered the phrase when I was appearing before
1199:
You see ... this is why we have NCORP. You say there are
462:
online that it's even treated a single patient; there's
171:
167:
163:
524:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
235:
1698:. Article has been totally reworked and resourced.
1270:
is a PR stunt and fails for the exact same reasons.
902:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
833:). Lets agree to disagree and let others weigh in.
1201:multiple sources that are independent of the topic
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1812:). No further edits should be made to this page.
611:(using many of the same phrases as contained in
321:Note: This discussion has been included in the
301:Note: This discussion has been included in the
281:Note: This discussion has been included in the
897:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2019 September 19
1467:about subject-specific notability guidelines:
283:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
1023:side conversation about nomination formatting
303:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
249:
8:
1624:As has been pointed out to you elsewhere by
129:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1306:A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
323:list of Jordan-related deletion discussions
83:Articles for deletion/Abdali Medical Center
1018:
320:
300:
280:
1021:
80:
1468:
1395:Removed the sentence you objected to.
1309:
1051:
7:
378:about how many patient beds it has.
643:also has no attributed journalist (
79:
790:is not based on any other article.
784:is not based on any other article.
582:From source 3, google translated.
24:
114:Introduction to deletion process
1093:a long thread on your talk page
625:has not attributed journalist (
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1329:How is this reopen again? How
970:20:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
951:22:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
915:07:20, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
866:17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
854:11:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
840:20:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
811:14:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
730:12:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
689:has no attributed journalist (
613:this other piece of churnalism
592:15:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
548:14:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
532:14:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
435:12:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
1:
1596:Ceyockey did some good work.
659:This next one from alghad.com
494:15:54, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
480:15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
411:06:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
388:17:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
357:15:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
335:14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
315:14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
295:14:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
275:14:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
1791:01:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
1767:10:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
1737:11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
1722:10:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
1677:14:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
1647:11:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
1613:01:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
1469:an SNG can never be used to
1348:03:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
1322:14:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
687:This addustour.com reference
67:09:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
1583:18:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
1569:17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
1547:16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
1524:17:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
1502:14:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
1484:15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
1448:05:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
1426:01:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
1405:15:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1380:13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1369:01:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1277:16:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
1245:19:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1218:17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1189:16:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1170:13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1150:16:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
1121:17:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1108:14:11, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1076:13:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
1062:20:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
1007:14:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
988:13:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
623:This from renewablesnow.com
104:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1829:
1465:this comment from Dodger67
669:This royanews.tv reference
649:this article in menafn.com
681:This alghad.com reference
1802:Please do not modify it.
819:Here's the press release
706:this alrai.com reference
675:This Zawya.com reference
32:Please do not modify it.
1264:This from addustour.com
1694:. No compliance with
1256:This from Khaberni.com
974:What do you mean "no"
605:This Venture reference
78:AfDs for this article:
1268:this from jfrnews.com
788:The Addustour article
138:Abdali Medical Center
102:Articles for deletion
73:Abdali Medical Center
1557:Knowledge:Notability
641:This from alghad.com
1312:Subject meets GNG.
782:This Alghad article
764:This Alghad article
1459:per Nfitz. Passes
893:Relisting comment:
754:The Alghad article
745:The intelligentcio
741:The Venture source
515:Relisting comment:
376:independent source
1788:
1690:per reasoning of
1653:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
1423:
1366:
1128:
1127:
1050:, where it says,
917:
913:
776:The Zawya article
770:The Ro'ya article
579:
578:
534:
337:
317:
297:
119:Guide to deletion
109:How to contribute
1820:
1782:
1780:
1747:
1746:
1743:Blair Moody, Jr.
1720:
1710:7&6=thirteen
1436:
1417:
1415:
1394:
1360:
1091:There's already
1045:
1019:
912:
910:
903:
901:
890:
888:
560:
523:
512:
510:
423:
400:
346:
254:
253:
239:
191:
179:
161:
99:
34:
1828:
1827:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1810:deletion review
1774:
1707:
1430:
1409:
1388:
1229:WP:WABBITSEASON
1129:
1098:WP:IDONTHEARYOU
1039:
1024:
918:
906:
904:
883:
881:
772:can be removed.
535:
505:
503:
453:. According to
417:
394:
340:
196:
187:
152:
136:
133:
96:
93:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1826:
1824:
1815:
1814:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1725:
1724:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1616:
1615:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1550:
1549:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1505:
1504:
1486:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1428:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1248:
1247:
1221:
1220:
1192:
1191:
1173:
1172:
1153:
1152:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
900:
891:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
791:
785:
779:
773:
767:
761:
751:
748:
733:
732:
716:
715:
714:
713:
702:
684:
678:
672:
666:
656:
638:
620:
595:
594:
577:
576:
573:
572:
571:
564:
558:
557:
551:
550:
522:
513:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
455:this PR source
439:
438:
437:
391:
390:
360:
359:
338:
318:
298:
257:
256:
193:
132:
131:
126:
116:
111:
94:
92:
91:
90:
85:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1825:
1813:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1798:
1797:
1792:
1787:
1786:
1778:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1765:
1764:
1758:
1755:
1754:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1735:
1734:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1723:
1718:
1717:
1712:
1711:
1705:
1701:
1700:User:HighKing
1697:
1693:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1645:
1644:
1640:
1637:
1633:
1630:Throwing out
1627:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1584:
1581:
1580:
1575:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1548:
1545:
1544:
1539:
1534:
1531:
1530:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1474:
1472:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1455:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1434:
1429:
1427:
1422:
1421:
1413:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1392:
1387:
1386:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1365:
1364:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1332:
1331:User:HighKing
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1305:
1278:
1275:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1077:
1074:
1073:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1043:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1020:
1008:
1005:
1004:
999:
995:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
976:User:HighKing
973:
972:
971:
968:
967:
962:
957:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
923:
920:
919:
916:
911:
909:
898:
894:
889:
886:
867:
864:
863:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
843:
842:
841:
838:
837:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
814:
813:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
789:
786:
783:
780:
777:
774:
771:
768:
765:
762:
759:
755:
752:
749:
746:
742:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
731:
728:
727:
722:
718:
717:
711:
707:
703:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
682:
679:
676:
673:
670:
667:
664:
660:
657:
654:
650:
646:
642:
639:
636:
632:
628:
624:
621:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
602:
600:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:
568:
567:
565:
561:
556:
553:
552:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
533:
530:
527:
520:
519:the talk page
516:
511:
508:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
460:
456:
452:
447:
443:
440:
436:
433:
432:
427:
421:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
408:
404:
398:
393:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
344:
339:
336:
332:
328:
324:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
299:
296:
292:
288:
284:
279:
278:
277:
276:
273:
272:
268:
264:
261:
252:
248:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
212:
209:
206:
202:
199:
198:Find sources:
194:
190:
186:
183:
177:
173:
169:
165:
160:
156:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
134:
130:
127:
124:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
106:
105:
103:
98:
89:
86:
84:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
64:
63:
58:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1801:
1799:
1783:
1771:
1762:
1756:
1732:
1715:
1709:
1687:
1642:
1629:
1621:
1593:
1578:
1542:
1532:
1488:
1470:
1456:
1418:
1375:
1361:
1356:
1336:User:Bearian
1308:
1301:
1272:
1233:WP:AFDFORMAT
1213:
1208:
1200:
1165:
1116:
1090:
1071:
1048:WP:AFDFORMAT
1002:
965:
955:
921:
907:
892:
882:
861:
835:
815:
778:was removed.
725:
720:
710:WP:CORPDEPTH
699:WP:CORPDEPTH
631:WP:CORPDEPTH
598:
554:
514:
504:
445:
430:
363:
270:
262:
259:
258:
246:
240:
232:
225:
219:
213:
207:
197:
184:
95:
61:
55:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1704:Red herring
1639:evaluation.
1440:Makeandtoss
1397:Makeandtoss
1046:please see
846:Makeandtoss
803:Makeandtoss
607:is classic
584:Makeandtoss
570:healthcare.
486:Makeandtoss
459:This source
442:Makeandtoss
420:Makeandtoss
403:Makeandtoss
349:Makeandtoss
223:free images
1785:talk to me
1669:Lightburst
1605:Lightburst
1538:churnalism
1420:talk to me
1363:talk to me
1314:Lightburst
908:Sandstein
795:WP:ORGCRIT
609:churnalism
1806:talk page
1696:WP:Before
1636:WP:BEFORE
1632:WP:NEXIST
1598:WP:NEXIST
1357:Weak keep
1262:and GNG.
1260:WP:ORGIND
1205:WP:ORGIND
1161:WP:ORGIND
831:WP:ORGIND
704:Finally,
695:WP:ORGIND
663:WP:ORGIND
653:WP:ORGIND
651:), fails
635:WP:SIGCOV
617:WP:ORGIND
468:WP:HAMMER
451:heuristic
327:Shellwood
307:Shellwood
287:Shellwood
37:talk page
1808:or in a
1777:HighKing
1763:HighKing
1733:HighKing
1661:WP:NCORP
1657:WP:NCORP
1643:HighKing
1622:Response
1579:HighKing
1543:HighKing
1512:WP:GROUP
1433:Ceyockey
1412:HighKing
1391:Ceyockey
1376:HighKing
1273:HighKing
1214:HighKing
1166:HighKing
1117:HighKing
1102:RoySmith
1072:HighKing
1067:RoySmith
1056:RoySmith
1042:HighKing
1003:HighKing
998:WP:NCORP
966:HighKing
961:WP:NCORP
885:Relisted
862:HighKing
836:HighKing
823:WP:NCORP
816:Response
726:HighKing
526:RoySmith
507:Relisted
431:HighKing
426:WP:NCORP
343:HighKing
271:HighKing
267:WP:NCORP
182:View log
123:glossary
39:or in a
1772:Comment
1626:Elmidae
1600:passes
1476:4meter4
1471:exclude
992:Thanks
956:Comment
799:page 22
758:Al Ghad
697:and/or
599:Comment
540:Bearian
472:Bearian
397:Bearian
380:Bearian
372:WP:MILL
229:WP refs
217:scholar
155:protect
150:history
100:New to
1692:Ifnord
1665:WP:GNG
1602:WP:GNG
1574:Ifnord
1561:Ifnord
1516:Ifnord
1494:Ifnord
1461:WP:GNG
1304:WP:GNG
1105:(talk)
1100:. --
1059:(talk)
941:here.
939:WP:HEY
827:WP:NOT
529:(talk)
368:WP:GNG
364:Delete
260:Delete
201:Google
159:delete
62:Karate
1555:From
1489:Keep.
1340:Nfitz
1237:Nfitz
1181:Nfitz
1142:Nfitz
994:Nfitz
980:Nfitz
943:Nfitz
935:three
691:WP:RS
645:WP:RS
627:WP:RS
244:JSTOR
205:books
189:Stats
176:views
168:watch
164:links
16:<
1757:Note
1688:Keep
1673:talk
1663:and
1634:and
1609:talk
1594:Keep
1565:talk
1533:Note
1520:talk
1498:talk
1480:talk
1457:Keep
1444:talk
1401:talk
1344:talk
1318:talk
1302:Per
1241:talk
1185:talk
1146:talk
984:talk
947:talk
922:Keep
895:Per
850:talk
807:talk
633:and
588:talk
555:Keep
544:talk
490:talk
476:talk
446:i.e.
407:talk
384:talk
370:and
366:per
353:talk
331:talk
311:talk
291:talk
237:FENS
211:news
172:logs
146:talk
142:edit
56:Fish
50:keep
1706:.
931:two
929:,
927:one
251:TWL
180:– (
1789:)
1675:)
1628:,
1611:)
1567:)
1540:.
1522:)
1500:)
1482:)
1446:)
1424:)
1403:)
1367:)
1346:)
1320:)
1243:)
1235:.
1187:)
1163:.
1148:)
986:)
949:)
933:,
852:)
809:)
801:.
590:)
575:”
563:“
546:)
492:)
478:)
470:.
428:.
409:)
386:)
355:)
333:)
325:.
313:)
305:.
293:)
285:.
231:)
174:|
170:|
166:|
162:|
157:|
153:|
148:|
144:|
52:.
1779::
1775:@
1719:)
1716:☎
1713:(
1671:(
1607:(
1563:(
1518:(
1496:(
1478:(
1442:(
1435::
1431:@
1414::
1410:@
1399:(
1393::
1389:@
1342:(
1316:(
1239:(
1183:(
1144:(
1044::
1040:@
982:(
945:(
899:.
848:(
805:(
712:.
701:.
665:.
655:.
637:.
619:.
586:(
542:(
488:(
474:(
422::
418:@
405:(
399::
395:@
382:(
351:(
345::
341:@
329:(
309:(
289:(
255:)
247:·
241:·
233:·
226:·
220:·
214:·
208:·
203:(
195:(
192:)
185:·
178:)
140:(
125:)
121:(
59:+
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.