52:. On balance, the material supporting notability is as strong as we generally use for organizations of this sort. We often have the problem with religious journals used to support notability or groups or peoples active in that religion, and it's similar to the very frequent problem of using trade journals to support notability of people or organizations in that trade. What in practice is basically needed in each case is some recognition from outside the religion or trade, and that seems to be present here,
216:
888:
world try not to live on the
Internet, so finding online sources is not always so easy. I also found the continual relisting of the page offensive, in that it felt like people wanting a deletion were going to keep on relisting until they got enough support to win a deletion. My apologies if I misread peoples' motivation, but that's what it looked like from my seat.
395:
in depth coverage. At least 5 references are deadlinks, although based on their titles it's unlikely they ever had any in depth information about this organization. References 13 - 27, which are more than half of the references on the page, are just a mention of the name of the organization. The rest of the article is unsourced and original research.
858:, but neither of you have brought a single independent reliable source which would justify keeping this article (leaving aside their reliability, neither have anything more than a passing mention of this organization). Perhaps instead of criticizing th::::::::::::::e admins, you could research and make a policy based reason for keeping the article.
836:
you want this to be kept then you need to show that the subject has received significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not just offer a personal opinion of the subject. One independent reliable source has been provided that has a few sentences about the subject (jlaw.com), so if you can find a few more such sources this can be kept.
1130:
I had really hoped that others with more knowledge of this than I have would undertake this work, but I guess it's going to be mostly on Sir Joseph and me. I think what needs to happen is this: (1) We need to get Klal
Perspective (which is, in fact, a journal with editorial oversight), into the page.
835:
If the discussion was closed now then it would certainly be as "delete", because nobody has made a policy-compliant argument for keeping, but three people have made such arguments for deleting. The consensus that we use is that among editors making policy-compliant arguments, not a count of votes. If
1385:
And you read my responses to those. The first that you mention is not independent and the second only has one short sentence confirming existence. As I said, but you choose to ignore, however many times you repeat an untruth it still doesn't become true. Please don't use propaganda methods that were
1328:
Before I leave, I need to make the following point. As harsh as 86 has been, s/he and
FuriouslySerene have generally been polite, and 86 has correctly called me out on my lack of good faith. But Compassionate727, when you say, "I just want this out of the mainspace right now," that's just nasty. You
1205:
Well, you should give me longer because I asked nicely. And because it's clear that I thought that during the month's interval, the onus was on the deleting parties. I didn't think (and really still don't) that the sources here are so inadequate as to call the outright notability of the subject into
1060:
StevenJ81, nobody in this discussion has said anything that could remotely give you cause to think that they are motivated by anything other than a desire to maintain
Knowledge's standards. I find the implication of your assumption about motivation, especially the "and still does", deeply offensive.
1359:
Sir Joseph, you have been invited several times to indicate which "good and reliable" sources you consider are adequate for establishing notablity, but have still only come up with the one source at jlaw.com that has a few dozen words about AJOP. I have already asked you to stop repeating arguments
990:
As already noted the cross-currents source was written by a former board member of AJOP, so is not independent as required. Please don't repeat arguments that have already been refuted. The Google Books cite that you provided has one sentence saying that this group exists, which falls well short of
394:
The previous AfD was from over 8 years ago, and
Knowledge nota::::::::::::::bility and verifiability policies have changed considerably since then. I am unsure what you mean by the "article is well sourced." Which references are you talking about? There isn't a single reference on the page that has
1234:
I agree with your suggestion, I think the article should be userfied to your user space until sufficient reliable sources can be identified. There's way too much unsourced content right now, the tone is way too promotional still, and I don't think the sources provided so far meet the GNG. If there
1458:
I apologize. Looking back at my comment, I'm not sure why added "right now," as it is not something that I meant at the time, or have ever felt. Certainly, that would explain why that comment didn't 'feel right' at the time, and I can see why you are offended. I've struck it. I'm not sure that'll
1302:
I agree with both
FuriouslySerene and Compassionate727. This has been in mainspace for nearly nine years, with editors scraping the barrel to find adequate sources, and this discussion has been going on for a month with no new such sources being identified, so the issue of this being in mainspace
887:
Frankly, I have been concerned that this nomination was motivated in part by bias. I need to say here for the record that (a) Orthodox communications vehicles that are reliable within their own world are sometimes denigrated by editors who are not part of the world, and (b) parts of the
Orthodox
1167:
Well, 86, I'm the one with egg (or worse) on my face right now. If you look through my work around here, you'll see that I'm usually a pretty strong proponent of AGF. And I flat-out failed on that in this instance. I have run across some anti-Orthodox bias on a few occasions here, but you are
921:
1303:
needs to be decided right here, right now. If StevenJ81 and Sir Joseph think they can find better sources after all this time then of course they should be given a chance to do so, but in draft or user space, not mainspace. My understanding of the process is that if sourcing is improved a
1175:
and I plan to rewrite and scale down this page to something that the sources we have can actually support. We think that there are enough reasonably good sources here to maintain a short article on the organization, limiting the article to facts and taking out puffery and promotion.
586:
Thanks for identifying the best of the sources cited in the article, but it still only has three or four sentences about AJOP, so wouldn't be enough on its own to justify notability. Can you identify a few more such sources? If so it would help the case for keeping this article.
922:
https://books.google.com/books?id=4c7UBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=association+for+jewish+outreach+programs&source=bl&ots=zpehZlyj4_&sig=O2rndb-WNq7SALc5fwPLiNRfC3k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbx8XskajNAhWI8z4KHVeaCHI4ChDoAQhNMAU
1428:
I think these sources are sufficient to show notability in a minimal kind of way. I'm also prepared to accept an impartial administrator's ruling to the contrary. But if you're going to start accusing us in that way, I'm not prepared to accept
180:
891:
All that having been said, I am no longer finding evidence of the organization's existence at all—even its own website is no longer operational. I'm not so interested in this as to try to prove that an AJOP of the past was notable.
533:
Sources could be better, and we should really work to resolve the templates that have been sitting there for nearly five years. But deletion is unnecessary. The organization is legitimate and quite active within its world.
1111:
Not sure if there's a real good spot for it, but perhaps under
Founding in NY? That is what is currently in the article. I'm sure we can somehow add a section about AJOP and kiruv responding to modern technical issues.
1190:
You've had over a month to present such sources here and haven't done so. Why on Earth should you get any longer to do so? There's no need to spend time on editing the article - just show us the sources, right now.
1347:
Even taking out the bad sources, there are more than enough good and reliable sources to justify an article, even pared down. I am a bit surprised by the tone of those advocating delete. I've seen far worse.
1131:(2) We need to clean up junk and dead links in here. (3) We need to see what is left at that point. I'm thinking I need the rest of the week on this, since I have a real life, too. Are you amenable to that?
1075:
86, I don't understand why the page was relisted four times. I found that suspicious. But I am willing to place my suspicions in the past tense, at least. And I will repeat my apology in the present tense.
964:
I think there is now more than enough to save this page. We have jlaw, cross-currents, the few google books cites, the klal-perspectives and the quite a few others I missed that was already in the article.
686:
claim. I:::::::::::::: agree with that claim, also in view of who was the main contributor to this article. I have no opinion on the quality of the sources or the notability criteria for organizations.
1149:
StevenJ81, I read the relisting as bending over backwards to give supporters of keeping this article time to make valid arguments, quite the opposite of your supposition that defies our practice of
174:
106:
101:
799:
This page has been listed and relisted for a month, and there is certainly not a consensus to delete. I think this should be kept for now, with a moratorium on a new AfD for, say, 6-12 months.
110:
1213:
and I both think the sources already present are sufficient to show notability, and to allow a substantially reduced article to remain in the encyclopedia. I think that is what should happen.
1037:
1472:, since you've asked to be pinged to deletion discussions and we need an administrator, would you go ahead and close this thing before anyone (myself included) says anything else stupid? —
1036:
Ok, maybe I was wrong to characterise it in that way, but this is still an opinion piece by a rabbi about his addresses to AJOP, not an independent source writing about that organisation.
93:
495:
223:
1333:. There is nothing in the article that should offend you that much. I suggest you look to 86 and FuriouslySerene to learn how to write comments that people will listen to.
1321:
I still don't agree that the sources are that woefully inadequate. But I suspect we're going to lose that battle. So go ahead and call in an administrator to close this as
140:
357:
133:
97:
1168:
absolutely right that there was no explicit indication that there was bias here. And I assumed bias, rather than good faith. So I am 100% in the wrong on this.
328:
It's a somewhat lengthy article, but there are zero reliable references on the page. It's almost entirely original research right now, and is written like a
515:. No independent reliable sources with significant ::::::::::::::coverage have been presented either in the article or here, and I can find none elsewhere.
1209:
I do think the sources aren't great. I do think the p::::::::::::::iece is too promotional, and that not all of it is well supported by the sources. But
787:
Most accessible sources are trivial, the one good one that's been pointed out isn't indepdendent. It just isn't notable. Maybe in a different world... –
620:
That source contains the sentence, "I was a Board member of AJOP for many years in the early years of the organization", so is clearly not independent.
195:
976:
Well, we need to get everything included. (Note: cross-currents is pretty marginal, even for me, notwithstanding point (a) above. It's still a blog.)
162:
89:
69:
1476:
1463:
1442:
1420:
1406:
1395:
1380:
1369:
1354:
1342:
1316:
1270:
1260:
1244:
1229:
1200:
1185:
1162:
1140:
1118:
1106:
1085:
1070:
1045:
1029:
1000:
985:
971:
959:
934:
915:
901:
867:
845:
826:
808:
791:
774:
747:
721:
696:
662:
644:
629:
611:
596:
577:
562:
544:
524:
504:
482:
468:
454:
443:
425:
404:
385:
366:
349:
63:
79:
156:
1412:
1387:
1361:
1308:
1192:
1154:
1062:
992:
837:
654:
621:
588:
554:
516:
460:
152:
232:
262:
459:
None of them is an independent reliable source with significant coverage, so none of them is valid for establishing notability.
202:
1360:
that have been refuted, but you are doing so again now. However many times you repeat an untruth it still doesn't become true.
17:
1329:
sound like you are offended at the very existence of the article, and are failing to assume good faith on my part and that of
1150:
553:
But our notability guidelines depend on significant coverage in independent reliable sources, not legitimacy or activity.
1153:. As I said before, this could quite correctly have been closed as "delete" before any of the relisti::::::::::::::ng.
991:
the significant coverage required. The klal-perspectives source is an
Internet forum, obviously not a reliable source.
248:
168:
820:
I agree. I don't see the reason for the multiple relisting. It's not as if there were no comments on the discussion.
756:
730:
704:
221:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1513:
1240:
928:
one thing to keep in mind is that AJOP had originally been the acronym for one thing but it was changed later on.
863:
478:
439:
400:
345:
40:
939:
Then edit the page and get the sources in the page. I'll flip back if you can find three unimpeachable sources.
1416:
1391:
1365:
1312:
1216:
That said, if an administrator comes here in the next few days and is bound and determined to close this as
1196:
1158:
1066:
1041:
996:
841:
658:
625:
592:
558:
520:
464:
294:
1509:
1473:
1460:
1267:
1257:
788:
500:
36:
925:
1404:
1378:
1352:
1236:
1116:
1027:
969:
957:
932:
913:
859:
824:
642:
609:
575:
474:
452:
435:
396:
383:
364:
341:
278:
252:
1438:
1338:
1225:
1181:
1136:
1102:
1081:
981:
944:
897:
804:
692:
540:
237:
188:
1125:
421:
284:
215:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1508:
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
571:, just out of curiosity, what's wrong with jlaw.com? It's a reputable law and halacha site.
1453:
1425:
OK. This is now at the point that we need an impartial administrator. (How do we get one?)
1401:
1375:
1349:
1330:
1220:
then I will request it be userfied into my user space, and I will continue to work on it.
1210:
1172:
1113:
1092:
1024:
966:
954:
929:
910:
821:
683:
639:
606:
572:
449:
380:
361:
332:
page. Page doesn't really make an assertion of notability either. Does not appear to meet
329:
1449:
1434:
1334:
1221:
1177:
1132:
1098:
1077:
977:
940:
893:
800:
688:
536:
337:
951:
1304:
1235:
are more out there that haven't been identified, the article can be recreated later.
855:
417:
333:
59:
1266:
Struck asinine addition to my statement, whose reason for adding I can't remember. —
768:
741:
312:
300:
268:
1023:
Klal
Perspective is not a forum, it's an online journal with editorial oversight.
127:
247:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
854:
I agree with the IP. To the two commenters, I'm sure you're familiar with the
714:
1307:
discussion should be used to determine whether it has been improved enough.
1469:
653:
And so sources must be independent in order to contribute to notability.
379:]. I also fail to see the lack of sources, this article is well sourced.
54:
1374:
Read up, I brought a journal, a google books source just to name a few.
473:
None of them, as I said in my nomination and my comment to you above.
926:
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/the-outreach-revolution/
906:
416:
based on the more than adequate sourcing about the organization.
1502:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1097:
How do you want to work in the citation from Klal Perspective?
210:
759:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
733:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
707:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
241:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
123:
119:
115:
187:
1386:
developed by the arch-enemies of the Jewish people.
952:
http://klalperspectives.org/rabbi-ephraim-buchwald/
766:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
739:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
713:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
496:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1516:). No further edits should be made to this page.
434:Which sources in specific are you referring to?
1171:Before this page is actually deleted, however,
1411:WOW! I pointed out what you were doing here.
377:this article was the subject of a prior AFD,
261:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
231:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
201:
8:
494:Note: This debate has been included in the
358:list of Judaism-related deletion discussions
356:Note: This debate has been included in the
682:The only point I want to comment on is the
947:) 18:2::::::::::::::7, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
493:
355:
235:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
909:is the site, and it seems pretty recent.
1252:. I just want this out of the mainspace
877:I'm going to change my mind and support
255:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
90:Association for Jewish Outreach Programs
70:Association for Jewish Outreach Programs
77:
881:I'm thinking AJOP may have shut down.
7:
1459:help anything, but I do apologize. —
76:
24:
907:http://ajopconvention.weebly.com/
214:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
448:Which sources are not valid?
251:on the part of others and to
1325:, and let's be done with it.
1533:
1250:Support proposal to userfy
80:Articles for deletion/AJOP
1477:14:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
1464:14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
1443:21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1421:20:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1407:20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1396:20:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1381:19:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1370:19:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1355:19:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1343:18:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1317:18:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1271:14:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
1261:17:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1245:14:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1230:00:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
1201:21:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1186:21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1163:20:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1141:19:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1119:19:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1107:19:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1086:19:12, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1071:18:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1046:20:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1030:19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
1001:18:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
986:18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
972:18:45, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
960:18:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
935:18:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
920:Here's a scholar source:
916:18:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
902:18:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
868:17:59, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
846:17:17, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
827:16:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
809:16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
792:23:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
64:15:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
1505:Please do not modify it.
775:01:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
748:01:17, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
722:18:04, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
697:19:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
663:20:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
645:18:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
630:18:18, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
612:18:06, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
597:17:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
578:17:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
563:17:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
545:15:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
525:15:08, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
505:07:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
483:21:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
469:18:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
455:14:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
444:13:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
426:23:56, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
405:13:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
386:23:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
367:23:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
350:19:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
293:; accounts blocked for
263:single-purpose accounts
233:policies and guidelines
75:AfDs for this article:
1151:assuming good faith
924:and a news source:
605:cross-currents.com
245:by counting votes.
224:not a majority vote
1273:
1129:
950:Here's one more:
777:
750:
724:
507:
369:
326:
325:
322:
249:assume good faith
1524:
1507:
1474:Compassionate727
1461:Compassionate727
1457:
1323:deleted–userfied
1268:Compassionate727
1265:
1258:Compassionate727
1123:
1096:
789:Compassionate727
771:
765:
762:
760:
744:
738:
736:
734:
719:
712:
710:
708:
503:
320:
308:
292:
276:
257:
227:, but instead a
218:
211:
206:
205:
191:
143:
131:
113:
34:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1514:deletion review
1503:
1447:
1237:FuriouslySerene
1090:
860:FuriouslySerene
778:
769:
764:::::::::::::::
755:
753:
751:
742:
729:
727:
725:
715:
703:
701:
499:
475:FuriouslySerene
436:FuriouslySerene
397:FuriouslySerene
342:FuriouslySerene
310:
298:
282:
266:
253:sign your posts
148:
139:
104:
88:
85:
73:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1530:
1528:
1519:
1518:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1426:
1326:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1214:
1207:
1169:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1049:
1048:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
988:
918:
889:
884:
883:
871:
870:
849:
848:
830:
829:
812:
811:
794:
763:
752:
737:
726:
711:
700:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
648:
647:
633:
632:
615:
614:
600:
599:
581:
580:
566:
565:
548:
547:
527:
509:
508:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
471:
429:
428:
410:
409:
408:
407:
389:
388:
371:
370:
324:
323:
219:
209:
208:
145:
84:
83:
82:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1529:
1517:
1515:
1511:
1506:
1500:
1499:
1478:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1427:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:86.17.222.157
1410:
1409:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:86.17.222.157
1384:
1383:
1382:
1379:
1377:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1362:86.17.222.157
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1327:
1324:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:86.17.222.157
1306:
1272:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1193:86.17.222.157
1189:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1155:86.17.222.157
1152:
1148:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1127:
1126:edit conflict
1122:
1121:
1120:
1117:
1115:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1094:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1063:86.17.222.157
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:86.17.222.157
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1002:
998:
994:
993:86.17.222.157
989:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
970:
968:
963:
962:
961:
958:
956:
953:
949:
948:
946:
942:
938:
937:
936:
933:
931:
927:
923:
919:
917:
914:
912:
908:
905:
904:
903:
899:
895:
890:
886:
885:
882:
880:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
843:
839:
838:86.17.222.157
834:
833:
832:
831:
828:
825:
823:
819:
816:
815:
814:
813:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
790:
786:
784:
780:
779:
776:
773:
772:
761:
758:
749:
746:
745:
735:
732:
723:
720:
718:
709:
706:
699:
698:
694:
690:
685:
664:
660:
656:
655:86.17.222.157
652:
651:
650:
649:
646:
643:
641:
638:And so what?
637:
636:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
622:86.17.222.157
619:
618:
617:
616:
613:
610:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
594:
590:
589:86.17.222.157
585:
584:
583:
582:
579:
576:
574:
570:
569:
568:
567:
564:
560:
556:
555:86.17.222.157
552:
551:
550:
549:
546:
542:
538:
535:
532:
528:
526:
522:
518:
517:86.17.222.157
514:
511:
510:
506:
502:
501:North America
497:
492:
484:
480:
476:
472:
470:
466:
462:
461:86.17.222.157
458:
457:
456:
453:
451:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
415:
412:
411:
406:
402:
398:
393:
392:
391:
390:
387:
384:
382:
378:
376:
373:
372:
368:
365:
363:
359:
354:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
318:
314:
306:
302:
296:
290:
286:
280:
274:
270:
264:
260:
256:
254:
250:
244:
240:
239:
234:
230:
226:
225:
220:
217:
213:
212:
204:
200:
197:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
154:
151:
150:Find sources:
146:
142:
138:
135:
129:
125:
121:
117:
112:
108:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
81:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1504:
1501:
1433:about this.
1431:your opinion
1430:
1322:
1253:
1249:
1217:
878:
876:
817:
796:
782:
781:
767:
754:
740:
728:
716:
702:
681:
530:
529:
512:
413:
374:
327:
316:
304:
295:sockpuppetry
288:
277:; suspected
272:
258:
246:
242:
236:
228:
222:
198:
192:
184:
177:
171:
165:
159:
149:
136:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
375:Speedy Keep
175:free images
1454:Sir Joseph
1402:Sir Joseph
1376:Sir Joseph
1350:Sir Joseph
1331:Sir Joseph
1211:Sir Joseph
1173:Sir Joseph
1114:Sir Joseph
1093:Sir Joseph
1025:Sir Joseph
967:Sir Joseph
955:Sir Joseph
930:Sir Joseph
911:Sir Joseph
822:Sir Joseph
640:Sir Joseph
607:Sir Joseph
573:Sir Joseph
450:Sir Joseph
381:Sir Joseph
362:Sir Joseph
229:discussion
1510:talk page
1450:StevenJ81
1435:StevenJ81
1335:StevenJ81
1254:right now
1222:StevenJ81
1206:question.
1178:StevenJ81
1133:StevenJ81
1099:StevenJ81
1078:StevenJ81
978:StevenJ81
941:StevenJ81
894:StevenJ81
801:StevenJ81
689:Debresser
537:StevenJ81
285:canvassed
279:canvassed
238:consensus
37:talk page
1512:or in a
797:Comment.
757:Relisted
731:Relisted
705:Relisted
684:WP:PROMO
418:Alansohn
330:WP:PROMO
317:username
311:{{subst:
305:username
299:{{subst:
289:username
283:{{subst:
273:username
267:{{subst:
134:View log
39:or in a
1218:delete,
879:delete.
818:Comment
770:MBisanz
743:MBisanz
338:WP:CORP
281:users:
181:WP refs
169:scholar
107:protect
102:history
1468:Also,
1400:WOW!.
1305:WP:DRV
856:WP:GNG
783:Delete
513:Delete
334:WP:GNG
153:Google
111:delete
717:Nakon
531:Keep.
259:Note:
196:JSTOR
157:books
141:Stats
128:views
120:watch
116:links
60:talk
16:<
1452:and
1439:talk
1417:talk
1392:talk
1366:talk
1339:talk
1313:talk
1241:talk
1226:talk
1197:talk
1182:talk
1159:talk
1137:talk
1103:talk
1082:talk
1067:talk
1042:talk
997:talk
982:talk
945:talk
898:talk
864:talk
842:talk
805:talk
693:talk
659:talk
626:talk
593:talk
559:talk
541:talk
521:talk
479:talk
465:talk
440:talk
422:talk
414:Keep
401:talk
346:talk
189:FENS
163:news
124:logs
98:talk
94:edit
50:keep
1470:DGG
1256:. —
336:or
313:csp
309:or
301:csm
269:spa
243:not
203:TWL
132:– (
55:DGG
1441:)
1419:)
1394:)
1368:)
1341:)
1315:)
1243:)
1228:)
1199:)
1184:)
1161:)
1139:)
1105:)
1084:)
1069:)
1044:)
999:)
984:)
900:)
866:)
844:)
807:)
695:)
661:)
628:)
595:)
561:)
543:)
523:)
498:.
481:)
467:)
442:)
424:)
403:)
360:.
348:)
340:.
319:}}
307:}}
297::
291:}}
275:}}
265::
183:)
126:|
122:|
118:|
114:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
62:)
1456::
1448:@
1437:(
1415:(
1390:(
1364:(
1337:(
1311:(
1239:(
1224:(
1195:(
1180:(
1157:(
1135:(
1128:)
1124:(
1101:(
1095::
1091:@
1080:(
1065:(
1040:(
995:(
980:(
943:(
896:(
862:(
840:(
803:(
785:.
691:(
657:(
624:(
591:(
557:(
539:(
519:(
477:(
463:(
438:(
420:(
399:(
344:(
321:.
315:|
303:|
287:|
271:|
207:)
199:·
193:·
185:·
178:·
172:·
166:·
160:·
155:(
147:(
144:)
137:·
130:)
92:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
