872:
to include things such as this, why not also include other shocking acts or peoples that are routinely mentioned in the news or others who have done extreme art? She created something shocking & got mentioned in the news. Barring any other occurence such as an attempt at her life, her expulsion, or something similar, there is nothing that merits an entry. We may as well enter in the random performance of a streaker or cowtipper. There really seems to be no difference. (And if it matters, there is a video floating around the internet of
Shvarts talking about how the entire thing truly was a hoax & how she fooled everyone & is continuing to do so to gain attention. If I can find it or get someone else to find it, I'll post it.)
1156:. I'd like to add my voice to the people who are saying that this article (if not outright deleted), should be moved to mention only the actual art performance itself under the 2008 Yale Undergraduate Senior Art Show, as that is really the most applicable place for it to be. As it is right now, this article is serving as more of a advertisement than anything else. This person is not noteworth enough to deserve her own page. Merge it under the 2008 YUAS as a newsworthy mention. Other than this publicity stunt, she has done nothing else to merit an article.
393:(seemingly) perpetrated a hoax. As to whether she actually is sufficiently notable--well, yes, my argument (perhaps made poorly) was that I don't consider a single college art project, with a flurry of day-of articles, to be sufficiently notable to get the artist a bio page. But I recognize that it's a judgement call. I'll be perfectly happy to defer to the Wiki.Consensus, whatever it happens to be. (It might be worth waiting until tomorrow to see if the attention persists at all.) Also, I think it's fair to say that the notoriety is about the
552:
article was about a yale student who was the victim of a crime or was witness to some otherwise notable event, then the line "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted..." applies. As written, the line doesn't apply if the verifiable and notable news coverage focuses on the person as the instigator of the event.
1059:. Or create an article for the event. Not redirect to Yale. As stated above, only Yale claimed this was a sham (in lieu of using the h-word). Shvarts quickly rebutted, claiming she has several recordings of her activities as well as saved, frozen blood. This seems to be a notable moment in activism, art, the abortion rights movement, and for the uproar it caused, which has been covered by (
1592:. Article is about a notable event performed by Ms. Schvarts, not about Ms. Schvarts herself, although her name is the most appropriate title to use for the article. Whether this deed was a "hoax" -- and nothing but gossipy opinion has so far suggested that it was -- is irrelevant, as it has stirred up national attention either way.--
1444:(for now) but change its title. There is clearly not enough material there for it to be a biographical entry, and Aliza Shvarts does not seem notable enough to have such an entry anyway. However this particular "performance art" and the controversy it has generated appears to be notable and article worthy.
871:
This person hardly merits a wikipedia entry. It may be shocking now, but is it really memorable? I say that the page should be taken down for a few months to a year & then judge whether she merits an entry. As it stands now, I truly fail to see what is really necessary to include here. If we are
363:
STOP throwing the word hoax around. Let's be VERY clear. A hoax in this context refers to the article itself unless we specifically say it doesn't. In this case, what we mean to say is that the actions of the subject of the article weren't what was originally reported to be the case. However, as
794:
for events that are recent, yes we have to predict on the basis of judgment what will remain important. Crystal Ball does not refer to how we judge articles, just to the content of articles. If the article said "this will have attention over the years" that sentence certainly should be removed from
766:
I hardly feel that a high school prank deserves an entry in an encyclopedia! Will we putting an article on the 13 year old German boy who was quoted in all the papers about Nasa being wrong over an asteriod hiting earth in 2029,Then was proved wrong!I think not-neither should we entertain this item
1195:
I agree with some of the other comments here. This "event" should be moved to the YUAS. As it stands, it is more of an advertisement than anything else and again she is only known for one stunt that cannot be proven either way. If she has a page anyone who pulls a stunt would be justified in doing
891:
I actually found a decent comparison to this young lady. About a year ago there was another art student who went around dressing roadkill in children's clothing to make a statement. While she gained a large amount of publicity & stayed in the media eye for a while, her actual relevance quickly
551:
My last on this one, I promise, my voice is probably in this one too much (though I have nothing to do with the article per se). I don't think that BLP1E means that articles like this should not exist. I feel it means that articles where the person is tangent to the act shouldn't exist. If the
329:. You cite notability standards, but our general notability guideline states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Maybe I am missing something, but this subject (including
52:
is pretty clear on this, and no arguments have been put forward that suggest Ms
Schvarts has any other accomplishments than this one event. Arguments consisting of "article is well-referenced" or (worse) "keep because individual exists" are particularly weak.
1546:
comes to mind, and I think the combination of that and all the previous random policy documents should illustrate that it's not sensical to delete a three day old verifiably sourced article on the basis of non-notability. Fuck, did I make any sense at all?
1044:. I think that the subject may have become national news primarily due to the sensationalistic or insufficiently researched content of a college newspaper article. That does not seem like a good justification to have an encyclopedia article about her. --
415:
Ok. I didn't mean to imply that you meant to assert that the article was a hoax. Please accept my apologies if I sounded that way. What I mean is that the word (and words like it) has power all by itself and we should be careful using it.
1630:
but rename to be about the affair rather than the person. The project and the things surrounding it are notable, and the article currently reflects that. Might as well move it there rather than delete it all and start from scratch.
512:
subject is non-notable. A minor high school prank which after a very short news cycle, won't even be a useful memory. An individual's mere existence is also not a criteria for a WP article. I exist and don't merit one . . as yet.
697:
given the usefulness of this for the anti-abortion movement, it seems just a matter of common sense to realize this will remain a matter of public attention. In this particular case the article being under her name is appropriate.
238:. Shvart's publicity may have come for an odd/unusual reason but keeping this article justifies an individual entry for anyone that momentarily is mentioned in multiple news outlets for doing something controversial/important.
135:
Subject is not sufficiently notable; she's enjoying her "15 minutes" for a story about a college art project (ostensibly she deliberately got pregnant and had abortions; it was a hoax). I don't think this meets the stadard of
1534:(which both diminish the image of Knowledge and open it to legal pursuit) While including it serves the encyclopedia no harm, excluding it certainly may. It's true, the argument is straight from the inclusionist playbook --
282:
your comment does not carry much weight as the nom has not made any argument. The subject clearly meets the basic criteria of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, so in order for anyone to take the
1481:
She has received notable media coverage due to her abortion artwork. It's not been confirmed whether or not it is a hoax. Notability does not expire. Whether anybody will remember her in a year or not is completely
934:, it's "crystalballery" to say she won't be at some point. If in a few months nobody cares, then we can delete the article. But right now she gets hundreds of news results and the incident seems to be continuing. --
364:
she has achieved notability for the report project and now (possibly) discovery of the truth, this article should stay. If the facts bear out that this was a hoax, then the page can be updated to reflect that.
348:
I don't think WAX applies here, the argument is not that we have deleted other similar articles in the past, instead the argument is that wikipedia is not meant to be a clearing house for publicizing college
333:
the later-revealed nature of the art project) clearly meets this general formulation. There are other formulations of notability which might support this articles deletion, but no-one here has cited them.
1223:. The only part of the entire event that's notable is the initial Yale Daily article that mistakenly sensationalized the story. At best this should be merged with an article about menstrual blood art.
673:
as an article on the controversy, depending on amount of material. The incident is notable and has received extensive news coverage, and should not be whitewashed; however, we also need to avoid
1338:: The subject has had other artwork displayed and exhibited. If we set this most recent whatever-it-is aside, would those other performances or exhibitions been sufficient to show notability?
892:
faded after the controversey died down. I have a very strong feeling that after her art performance the controversey will die down. I wouldn't be surprised if she were to admit it was a hoax.
301:
The nom argument is clearly that this is a well publicized hoax that does not meet notability standards. This entry justifies an entry for every college prank that appeared in a newspaper.
1229:, her art has a lot of coverage, making her notable. Saying this should be deleted is like claiming that a musician whose first single a number one across the world should be deleted as per
1510:
is patently true. The topic of the article is currently receiving attention from numerous news sources, and has been the subject of lesser such attention repeatedly. The article meets the
795:
the article. But we here need to discuss whether the event will be remembered.-- We do not wait to cover things until they are old, just until we can tell that they are notable.
1196:
so. The only reason hers got so much notoriety is because of the abortion aspect, which again is not proven in either case. Thus, it should not be added to any abortion entries. (
158:
Article is POV, but she is already notable now (major news coverage relating specifically to her). Whether or not she is notable 1 year from now is unknowable and unimportant.
1373:
the reactions she recieved within 2 days is enough to illustrate the polarized opinions on the subject. highly contraversial, the article is aligned with wikipedia's mission.
128:
1706:. "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." The policy is pretty clear.
1567:
I've contacted
Shvarts in regard to whether or not she wants there to be an article. If she has no objections then presumably harm arguments won't have much water.
648:
As is "notable" - this is newspapers today, and probably chip paper tomorrow. No evidence (yet) of longer term significance, and we are not a newspaper.--
960:
203:. Major developments in the story (hoax?) are still breaking and information on the individual concerned has yet to appear. I strongly recommend we
175:
I created this article less than four hours ago. The subject has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources including, but not limited to
973:
per BLP1E and the article's a sort of advertising, gaining attention for someone whose whole notability is perhaps due to attempts to seek it.
1064:
829:
1285:
1207:
1112:
308:
245:
1402:(which is about how much attention the subject is getting, the existence of "polarized opinions," "controversy," "current event" etc.).
1111:
I'd observe that the fact that she cannot prove her pregnancy is part of the point of the performance, yes? Something about ambiguity?
1344:
1134:
1356:
for now. Wait a month or two and see if this person is deserving of an article after the media furor is over. This AfD is premature.
1669:
1100:. She made it clear that she cannot prove she was ever pregnant, seems like that short circuits the significance of the performance.
1034:. I believe merging this or redirecting this article would be the best option. She however does not merit her own biographical page.
95:
90:
449:
267:
99:
1013:, which has had many more notable things happen in its 300-year history than this. I prefer keep over delete, but not strongly.
17:
1716:
851:
82:
397:, and about Ms. Shvarts only as the perpetrator of it--so perhaps the "notable" article should be about her project, and
639:
make it notable, and we include articles on things which are notable. "Encyclopedic" is too vague a term to be helpful.
714:"just a matter of common sense to realize this will remain a matter of public attention" - isn't that crystalballery?--
1060:
263:
1651:
to an article about the controversy, which is clearly notable. I'm indifferent about whether the article remains at
1656:
772:
1469:
1733:
1707:
1259:
826:
36:
1732:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1308:
1279:
1088:
1048:
594:
312:
249:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1211:
1116:
785:
perhaps you should reread the sources. This is a BA thesis at Yale, with authoritative sourcing for validity.
1465:
1423:- it's got the media enthralled with its twists and turns, will likely be as referenced in the future as the
1035:
1613:
and revise accordingly. Subject is not notable beyond the confines of the brouhaha raised by her "project".
1488:
1183:
957:
1072:
1718:
1694:
1674:
1639:
1622:
1601:
1597:
1576:
1559:
1490:
1473:
1452:
1436:
1411:
1382:
1365:
1348:
1330:
1326:
1313:
1291:
1263:
1242:
1215:
1187:
1165:
1138:
1120:
1092:
1051:
1022:
1005:
984:
965:
943:
922:
918:
901:
881:
863:
833:
806:
776:
758:
718:
709:
689:
652:
643:
630:
618:
597:
578:
574:
561:
541:
522:
504:
480:
459:
425:
410:
373:
340:
316:
293:
271:
253:
230:
213:
167:
149:
64:
1665:
1539:
1483:
1197:
1161:
897:
877:
768:
746:
grounds ... and quite aside from anything else, speculating on the enduring notability of a news story
1618:
1322:
1255:
979:
914:
823:
518:
454:
304:
241:
1610:
1125:
Seems more like a contrived justification that was created after the artist was caught in a lie ...
1378:
1302:
1273:
1238:
1084:
1045:
1018:
591:
335:
288:
208:
389:
was a hoax--I only meant that the article is about a woman whose only claim to notability is that
1637:
1543:
952:
939:
614:
226:
86:
788:
By the way, there are some new developments, not yet added to the article. from the
Chronicle:
1593:
1572:
1557:
1432:
1339:
1129:
570:
557:
421:
369:
163:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1689:
1660:
1535:
1157:
1128:
Oh, quite probably - but, bizarrely, it's a statement documented by sources in the article.
893:
873:
715:
674:
649:
627:
476:
406:
279:
204:
145:
1460:
I think the "event" is more notable than the person. She should not have a bio page as per
467:
Thanks--I knew there was a policy that applied, but I couldn't find it. Yes, what he said,
381:
My apologies for using the word "hoax"--I can see how it could be misconstrued! Yes, I did
1703:
1614:
1589:
1548:
1507:
1499:
1461:
1251:
1230:
1175:
1031:
993:
974:
858:
751:
743:
686:
678:
666:
640:
606:
587:
514:
468:
444:
438:
49:
1519:
1407:
1374:
1361:
1234:
1014:
1001:
996:. Let's not confuse newsworthiness, which is fleeting, with notability, which is not.
733:
137:
59:
1652:
1632:
1531:
1503:
1076:
935:
802:
705:
610:
398:
326:
222:
78:
70:
1206:
per
Tokyogirl79. It's obviously a notable event, but the individual isn't, so much.
1659:
or something like that, but either way the subject is worth having an article on. —
1568:
1552:
1523:
1511:
1428:
609:
and add a small controversies section to that page. Artist not notable on her own.
553:
528:
491:
417:
365:
159:
1079:, and a slew of other reliable secondary sources). Perhaps instead, according to
441:. We all get our 15 minutes, but that doesn't entitle us to Knowledge articles. --
116:
1684:
1585:
1515:
1424:
1179:
472:
402:
141:
1464:. I think the "event" every right but this article as it stands is unnecessary.
1398:(which is the criterion by which we determine whether to have an article) with
1083:, an article for the event could be created with a redirect to it from here. —
854:, as that's really what's notable, and what the article's about. Usual stuff.
840:
1445:
855:
1299:
as there are plenty of reliable secondary sources confirming her notability.
789:
1403:
1357:
997:
729:
54:
287:
arguments seriously, you will need to make some sort of exceptional claim.
797:
700:
843:- SHVARTS REFUTES YALE'S CLAIM THAT SHE DIDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING.
728:
This girl doesn't deserve a wikipedia page for something she made up.
626:
just because something is outrageous does not make it encyclopedic.--
221:. Article is well-referenced, in contrast to the stuff on the web.
1068:
1080:
767:
in the
Knowledge.A hoax is just that a hoax.Hardly worth an entry.
1726:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1538:. But looking above, the comments for delete are also generally
1425:
infamous elephant dung painting that was so loathed by
Giuliani
1321:. This is an article on a notable in-progress current event.
1394:
Many of those in favor of keeping this article are confusing
1154:
123:
112:
108:
104:
1427:, and the artist probably has way more up her sleeve.
1233:. Blatant misrepresentation of Knowledge policies.
951:
per
Rividian. She's certainly notable right now. -
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1736:). No further edits should be made to this page.
791:I will admit they make it somewhat less notable.
750:is crystal-ballery at its most speculative.
8:
841:http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528
681:(a policy which I don't agree with, but it
635:But extensive coverage in reliable sources
207:and recommend that the nominator withdraw.
930:or move somewhere perhaps. She's notable
852:2008 Yale Undergraduate Senior Art Show
325:What this entry justifies is entirely
7:
1498:- To say that this article violates
490:— The individual clearly exists.
24:
1502:is most likely true. To say that
1011:Do not merge to Yale University
839:OSHII- IT'S NOT OVER YET GUYS!
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1657:Aliza Schvarts art controversy
1530:any policies contained within
736:) 09:38, , 18 April 2008 (UTC)
1:
527:Yes, it is and yes, you do.
193:Chronicle of Higher Education
1200:) 11:59 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1753:
1719:12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1695:06:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1675:05:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1640:05:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1623:17:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1602:06:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1577:02:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1560:01:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1491:21:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1474:15:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1453:01:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1437:20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1412:19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
1383:10:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1366:06:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1349:03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1331:02:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1314:01:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1292:23:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1264:23:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1243:22:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1216:16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1188:15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1166:12:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1139:03:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
1121:16:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1093:06:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1052:00:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1023:23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
1006:19:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
985:18:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
966:18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
944:18:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
923:18:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
902:16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
882:15:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
864:15:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
834:15:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
807:15:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
777:14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
759:14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
719:14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
710:13:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
690:10:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
653:13:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
644:10:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
631:09:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
619:05:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
598:04:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
579:04:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
562:03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
542:04:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
523:03:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
505:02:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
481:02:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
460:02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
426:03:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
411:02:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
401:should redirect there? --
374:01:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
341:01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
317:01:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
294:01:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
272:01:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
254:00:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
231:00:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
214:00:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
168:00:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
150:00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
65:12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
1038:8:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
1729:Please do not modify it.
1065:US News and World Report
205:give an article a chance
32:Please do not modify it.
1036:User:Thegiantpaperpanda
385:mean to imply that the
264:Pharaoh of the Wizards
742:A clear failure on
177:The Washington Post
1466:Thegiantpaperpanda
1198:Thegiantpaperpanda
912:Keep this article.
675:pseudo-biographies
395:art project itself
1673:
1526:, as well as not
1347:
1137:
964:
319:
307:comment added by
256:
244:comment added by
1744:
1731:
1713:
1687:
1663:
1555:
1486:
1450:
1343:
1312:
1305:
1290:
1288:
1282:
1276:
1133:
955:
861:
832:
769:Rosenthalenglish
755:
538:
535:
501:
498:
452:
447:
338:
302:
291:
239:
211:
126:
120:
102:
44:The result was
34:
1752:
1751:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1734:deletion review
1727:
1709:
1685:
1682:per Groupthink.
1553:
1484:
1446:
1303:
1300:
1286:
1280:
1274:
1272:
1256:Divinediscourse
859:
821:
753:
667:Yale University
607:Yale University
536:
533:
499:
496:
450:
445:
336:
289:
209:
189:Chicago Tribune
181:Daily Telegraph
122:
93:
77:
74:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1750:
1748:
1739:
1738:
1722:
1721:
1697:
1677:
1642:
1625:
1611:Shvarts affair
1604:
1579:
1562:
1540:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1493:
1476:
1455:
1439:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1400:newsworthiness
1386:
1385:
1368:
1351:
1333:
1316:
1304:brighterorange
1294:
1275:Lawrence Cohen
1266:
1245:
1224:
1218:
1208:71.244.244.213
1201:
1190:
1169:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1113:71.244.244.213
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1085:Rhododendrites
1054:
1046:Metropolitan90
1039:
1025:
1008:
987:
968:
946:
925:
908:
907:
906:
905:
886:
885:
866:
837:
836:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
792:
780:
779:
761:
737:
723:
722:
721:
692:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
621:
600:
592:Metropolitan90
581:
564:
546:
545:
544:
507:
485:
484:
483:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
309:128.226.204.35
257:
246:128.226.204.35
233:
216:
170:
133:
132:
73:
68:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1749:
1737:
1735:
1730:
1724:
1723:
1720:
1717:
1715:
1714:
1712:
1705:
1701:
1698:
1696:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1688:
1681:
1678:
1676:
1671:
1667:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1653:Aliza Shvarts
1650:
1646:
1643:
1641:
1638:
1636:
1635:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1605:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1580:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1563:
1561:
1558:
1556:
1550:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1514:, as well as
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1492:
1489:
1487:
1485:Save-Me-Oprah
1480:
1477:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1456:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1443:
1440:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1419:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1350:
1346:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1317:
1315:
1310:
1306:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1289:
1283:
1277:
1270:
1267:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1199:
1194:
1191:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1140:
1136:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1055:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
988:
986:
983:
982:
978:
977:
972:
969:
967:
962:
959:
954:
953:ParkerHiggins
950:
947:
945:
941:
937:
933:
929:
926:
924:
920:
916:
913:
910:
909:
903:
899:
895:
890:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
875:
870:
867:
865:
862:
857:
853:
849:
846:
845:
844:
842:
835:
831:
828:
825:
820:, nn hoaxer.
819:
816:
815:
808:
804:
800:
799:
793:
790:
787:
786:
784:
783:
782:
781:
778:
774:
770:
765:
762:
760:
757:
756:
749:
745:
741:
738:
735:
731:
727:
724:
720:
717:
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
702:
696:
693:
691:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
654:
651:
647:
646:
645:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
629:
625:
622:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
601:
599:
596:
593:
589:
585:
582:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
563:
559:
555:
550:
547:
543:
539:
530:
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
511:
508:
506:
502:
493:
489:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
462:
461:
458:
457:
456:
453:
448:
440:
436:
433:
427:
423:
419:
414:
413:
412:
408:
404:
400:
399:Aliza Shvarts
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
362:
359:
347:
344:
343:
342:
339:
332:
328:
324:
321:
320:
318:
314:
310:
306:
300:
297:
296:
295:
292:
286:
281:
278:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
258:
255:
251:
247:
243:
237:
234:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
215:
212:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
185:National Post
182:
178:
174:
171:
169:
165:
161:
157:
154:
153:
152:
151:
147:
143:
139:
130:
125:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:Aliza Shvarts
76:
75:
72:
71:Aliza Shvarts
69:
67:
66:
63:
62:
58:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1728:
1725:
1710:
1708:
1699:
1690:
1683:
1679:
1648:
1644:
1633:
1627:
1606:
1594:Father Goose
1581:
1564:
1527:
1495:
1478:
1457:
1447:
1441:
1420:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1370:
1353:
1340:UltraExactZZ
1335:
1318:
1296:
1268:
1247:
1226:
1220:
1203:
1192:
1171:
1153:
1130:UltraExactZZ
1097:
1056:
1041:
1027:
1010:
989:
980:
975:
970:
948:
931:
927:
911:
868:
847:
838:
817:
796:
763:
752:
747:
739:
725:
699:
694:
682:
670:
662:
636:
623:
602:
583:
571:Ketsuekigata
569:as per nom.
566:
548:
532:
509:
495:
487:
464:
455:(yada, yada)
443:
442:
434:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
360:
345:
330:
322:
298:
284:
276:
259:
235:
218:
201:United Press
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
155:
134:
60:
55:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1661:Josiah Rowe
1544:WP:NOTPAPER
1482:irrelevant.
1336:Observation
1227:Strong keep
1168:Tokyogirl79
1158:Tokyogirl79
904:Tokyogirl79
894:Tokyogirl79
884:Tokyogirl79
874:Tokyogirl79
754:Ravenswing
748:one day old
303:—Preceding
262:As per nom.
240:—Preceding
1615:Groupthink
1506:overrides
1396:notability
1323:Shandamoon
915:Keepscases
529:Kurt Weber
515:EraserGirl
492:Kurt Weber
327:irrelevant
1536:WP:NOHARM
1528:violating
1375:Candymoan
1271:Per nom.
1235:J Milburn
1015:Mangostar
685:policy).
337:Skomorokh
290:Skomorokh
280:WP:PERNOM
210:Skomorokh
1704:WP:BLP1E
1670:contribs
1634:Celarnor
1590:WP:BLP1E
1549:WP:WOTTA
1508:WP:BLP1E
1500:WP:BLP1E
1462:WP:BLP1E
1345:Evidence
1252:WP:BLP1E
1231:WP:BLP1E
1176:WP:BLP1E
1135:Evidence
1081:WP:BLP1E
1077:FOX News
1061:NY Times
1032:WP:BLP1E
994:WP:BLP1E
976:Merkin's
961:contribs
936:Rividian
744:WP:BLP1E
679:WP:BLP1E
611:Spell4yr
603:Redirect
588:WP:BLP1E
469:WP:BLP1E
439:WP:BLP1E
331:the hoax
305:unsigned
242:unsigned
223:Andrew73
129:View log
50:WP:BLP1E
1569:JoshuaZ
1565:comment
1554:Avillia
1520:WP:NOTE
1458:Comment
1429:Cjs2111
1392:Comment
1221:Comment
1193:Comment
1098:Comment
1042:Comment
830:Babylon
764:Delete:
740:Delete:
677:as per
661:Either
624:Delete
554:Protonk
549:Comment
418:Protonk
387:article
379:Comment
366:Protonk
361:Comment
349:pranks.
346:Comment
323:Comment
299:Comment
277:Comment
197:FOXNews
173:Comment
160:Protonk
138:WP:NOTE
96:protect
91:history
1700:Delete
1655:or at
1649:Rename
1532:WP:BLP
1522:, and
1504:WP:IAR
1269:Delete
1248:Delete
1180:Stifle
1172:Delete
1049:(talk)
1028:Delete
990:Delete
971:delete
869:Delete
818:Delete
726:Delete
687:Walton
671:rename
641:Walton
595:(talk)
584:Delete
567:Delete
537:Colts!
510:Delete
500:Colts!
473:Narsil
451:crewer
435:Delete
403:Narsil
285:delete
260:Delete
236:Delete
142:Narsil
124:delete
100:delete
46:delete
1524:WP:RS
1512:WP:5P
1448:Meowy
1069:Slate
663:merge
471:. --
140:. --
127:) – (
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1702:per
1686:Grsz
1680:Move
1666:talk
1645:Keep
1628:Keep
1619:talk
1607:Move
1598:talk
1588:and
1586:WP:N
1584:per
1582:Keep
1573:talk
1551:. --
1516:WP:V
1496:Keep
1479:Keep
1470:talk
1442:Keep
1433:talk
1421:Keep
1408:talk
1404:TJRC
1379:talk
1371:Keep
1362:talk
1358:Oore
1354:Keep
1327:talk
1319:Keep
1309:talk
1297:Keep
1260:talk
1250:per
1239:talk
1212:talk
1204:Move
1184:talk
1174:per
1162:talk
1117:talk
1089:talk
1057:Keep
1030:per
1019:talk
1002:talk
998:TJRC
992:per
958:talk
949:Keep
940:talk
928:Keep
919:talk
898:talk
878:talk
856:Wily
848:Move
827:Down
824:Burn
803:talk
773:talk
734:talk
730:w0rd
706:talk
695:Keep
637:does
615:talk
590:. --
586:per
575:talk
558:talk
519:talk
488:Keep
477:talk
465:whew
446:brew
437:per
422:talk
407:talk
370:talk
313:talk
268:talk
250:talk
227:talk
219:Keep
199:and
164:talk
156:Keep
146:talk
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
56:Neıl
1711:APK
1647:or
1609:to
981:mum
932:now
850:to
798:DGG
716:Doc
701:DGG
669:or
665:to
650:Doc
628:Doc
605:to
391:she
383:not
1668:•
1621:)
1600:)
1575:)
1542:.
1472:)
1435:)
1410:)
1381:)
1364:)
1329:)
1301:—
1278:§
1262:)
1254:.
1241:)
1214:)
1186:)
1178:.
1164:)
1119:)
1091:)
1075:,
1073:AP
1071:,
1067:,
1063:,
1021:)
1004:)
956:(
942:)
921:)
900:)
880:)
805:)
775:)
708:)
683:is
617:)
577:)
560:)
540:)
534:Go
521:)
503:)
497:Go
479:)
424:)
409:)
372:)
315:)
270:)
252:)
229:)
195:,
191:,
187:,
183:,
179:,
166:)
148:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
48:.
1672:)
1664:(
1617:(
1596:(
1571:(
1518:,
1468:(
1431:(
1406:(
1377:(
1360:(
1342:~
1325:(
1311:)
1307:(
1287:e
1284:/
1281:t
1258:(
1237:(
1210:(
1182:(
1160:(
1132:~
1115:(
1087:(
1017:(
1000:(
963:)
938:(
917:(
896:(
876:(
860:D
822:—
801:(
771:(
732:(
704:(
613:(
573:(
556:(
531:(
517:(
494:(
475:(
420:(
405:(
368:(
311:(
266:(
248:(
225:(
162:(
144:(
131:)
121:(
119:)
81:(
61:☎
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.