Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women

831:. Several editors are conflating or confusing two different things. The overnight outbreak of humorous postings and jokes about the awkward phrase, while nowhere on the evening of the debate, WAS reported the next morning (and by some News sources that missed it because of deadline, the next evening or morning). THAT is distinct from leftist attack groups buying domains (the ultra-left Soros PAC), and trying to now use and divert that humorous blip to make up connections. The former got general attention, was fun and short and is over. The latter exists in a nasty partisan bubble, is crude and nasty, was not a serious part of the discussion, and only still happens due to Democratic campaign push. -- 1158:(TIME article.) The "Binders Full of Women" group on Facebook has over 345k "likes" now, and seems to be actively growing. So even without the political aspects, it seems notable; Knowledge has plenty of articles about Internet phenomena that are famous just because of the number of YouTube views, or whatnot. The non-meme political aspects are also important of course; people are definitely discussing Romney's comments in general under the "binders full of women" label. Obama's used it at a campaign rally. So I don't think it cleanly fits into the presidential debate page, since it's a weird mix of Internet meme and political discussion with plenty of coverage, thus keep. – 2790:, an inconsequential report of and inconsequential web content bloom. There are editors who argue the whole Article should be deleted, as that is the only notable part of the article, and are consistent. Have noticed, though that editors who argue that the Article should remain often then argue either by word or action (deleting refs to the notable part as inconsequential) for deletion on the page. Either the stupid internet jokes need to be prominently displayed and discussed in the article as per WP:UNDUE, OR the notability arguments have to be dropped, since this was most of the mainstream coverage, by far. 2702:- What this is is sheer political idiocy, the usurpation of an encyclopedia for a political campaign. These are candidates for the highest office of the country; everything they do, say, eat, joke about, slip up over is going to be printed and reprinted hundreds of time over by the end of the day. There needs to be some critical thinking here about what is routine coverage of a politician in an election years and what is truly in the spirit of the project's notability guidelines. This is just a throwaway line from one debate. Funny Memes of the Day do not get Knowledge articles. 3009:. Context is important. Whether or not this is notable to secure its own article, rather than merge into the debates article or the election article can only be based on looking back and analyzing the event's effects. Otherwise, the standard would be: any statement that received coverage is notable, which doesn't make sense in terms of having independent articles. Why doesn't Obama's "arrows and horses" comment not deserve an article, or Romney's "corporations are people, my friend". We just 1499:, he further went into my other contributions, few as they are documented (after I registered), he removed a bunch more of my contributions. I would equate that to stalking. Certainly he's lost all credibility and journalistic integrity. We should discount all of his aggressive negative commentary here and elsewhere. I would guess you have a system to ban people like this. If he persists, I'll have to learn how that works. 70:& Mail. As with every article, merger remains an editorial possibility if a local consensus agrees to it (since people often ask this be stated explicitly). I wasn't able to detect a trend that way in the discussion - but it's tricky, because the sources kept appearing as the discussion continued, which may have changed the calculus is a way that a discussion like this, with much heat but little light, didn't illuminate. 487:. Definitely an awkward phrase, but no hidden meaning or substantial significance. Online barrage of Bill Clinton jokes afterward amusing, not exactly historic. WP editors' spin to conflate this and link to "Gender studies"?? "Misogyny"???? and "Feminism" just ridiculous (and it isn't a "Controversy"). Text at Debate article too long and WP:UNDUE, considering major substantial issues discussed and actual newsworthy disputes. -- 1797:. It is a rather strange meme, but it's achieved such notoriety (start typing Binders into the Google search bar and you'll see what I mean). There are countless reliable sources describing this thing; I am uncomfortable with political statements in deletion nominations, such as contentious "fictional War on Women" comments. Whether it's fictional or not, that's not a debate for AfD. 394:, or (4) the indiscriminate collection of commentators generating content on this topic. As for (4) the indiscriminate collection of commentators generating content on this topic, reliable sources originating commentary on the topic need to have been covered in reliable sources themselves to add the material to the "Binders full of women" article. Redirect if desired/needed. -- 2797:

does not really work and has not made it to mainstream consciousness, precisely for the reasons elaborated on Talk; they don't make much sense. Romney massively recruited women; hence, binders of resumes. The attempts to shoehorn something negative are artificial and contrived, and are unequivocally simply a groundless attack page, which also needs to be speedy deleted as per

644: 611:: In terms of notability, that's established by all the references. Beyond the notability, the statement is significant because Romney's claim that he sought names of qualified women has been disputed (those who dispute claim is that the names were provided unsolicited). I don't think we have to wait a year before determining notability. This is similar to the 1540:

and delete it. Perhaps you feel this weakening of the article supports your claim to delete the article. Actually what this activity does is weaken your position; that you have to artificially (attempt to) hide content in order to reduce the significance of the ariticle. This reveals both of your POV, while at the same time is quite improper.

1840:"Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy... Tear down this wall!, Read my lips: no new taxes" .. and to some extent "You didn't build that, " are all phrases that people who don't care about the absurd politics game have heard of. This rubbish is not. Knowledge does not need to duplicate everything on wikiquote, or encyclopediadramatica.se. 913:- Clearly notable; high probability of having staying power way beyond the election. This is not just about the memes and FB posts, but (for example) has even extended to Binder reviews on Amazon. IN just one day this thing started living "a live of its own".Not to score a WP:POINT, but this article is very comparable to 770:- This topic is likely short-term in nature and does not belong in the encyclopedia. If it lasts beyond this week I'd be surprised. Bring it back only if it has a lasting impact, but not now. BTW, most of the things I've seen actually seem to be a poke at Bill Clinton on the left rather than Romney. 3055:

fully sufficient coverage in its own right--quite apart from the political context & the great notability of the person who said it, the phrase is so inherently funny as being used in a serious context with such remarkably wrong connotations, that it will be not just notable but famous even after

2491:

If you haven't noticed the edit war being carried on by Arzel and Annonymous, you are playing right into their efforts to remove content from the article. It looks like an incomplete article about a meme because they keep trying to hide the substance behind it. Its a joke because of the history and

2212:

to second debate article. As it is, it fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NEO, but the phrase is a reasonable search term that can be covered on the second debate article. If the phrase stays around post-election, maybe we can talk about undoing the redirect, but at the present time, this is what should happen.

1037:

If you asked me on the eve of the debate, I might have said simply Merge. Looking at the flood of sources over the past 24 hours, and it looks like a candidate for its own article. It has generated a whole national discussion on the veracity of Romney's statements, after the source of the "binders"

807:

Questions are marginal; dispute over percent credit for what every involved party agrees was a collaborative effort, enthusiastically adopted by Romney. Not like affirmative action, as he merely made a huge effort to make sure women got a fair hearing, and that produced results. There were no quotas,

56:

are hard to overcome. NOTNEWS is much trickier - how can one evaluate the long-term significance of a event that happened a week ago? I can't see the case that it's "routine news reporting" the way baseball games, horroscopes, or traffic reports are - one would need to make a compelling case, which

2100:

says: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." Here, the "Binders full of women" phrase can be easily merged into the article about the 2012

2042:

was not to have two different articles on the same subject. Rather, the result was to rename the article about the speech so the new title is "You didn't build that". Here, it makes no sense to rename the article about the second presidential debate so that its new title is "Binders of women", and

1539:

I cleaned up on civility. Arzel, you and your Anonymous cohort are both deliberately deleting additions to the article while advocating for its deletion. You call it "silly season garbage" but when an explanation for why this is actually significant is (re) posted by multiple editors, you edit war

1290:

If all news/mentions peter out next year, revisit deleting, but probably an image that many people will refer to for many years and thus worthy of an article. Should be named like any other phrase which becomes a popular catch phrase like "Where's the beef?" or "War on Terror" or (Add your favorite

504:

While I absolutely don't agree that this article is "attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney", as the first post puts it, it's a fine example of the power of the Internet to make something out of practically nothing, an attempt for a fleeting bit of notoriety. The phrase will be gone in a matter

2796:

The press was about the former, the latter emerged once the stupid Clinton jokes got people's attention (and who doesn't like a stupid Clinton joke). The former is Notability without consequence/substance, the latter is an attempt to make up context/consequence, but with no notability. The effort

1975:

said above, this is not a neologism. A neologism has "not yet been accepted into mainstream language". This is merely a phrase composed of well-accepted words combined in a well-accepted way. "Binders full of women" is just a quote or sound byte, unsuitable as the title of an article about the

1468:

So this is how it works on wikipedia? I make a few edits to add content, essentially quotes, from mainstream media that put this in perspective, and an editor named Anonymous209 immediately deletes them. And then I come over to see the argument for deletion of the article and he is aggressively

523:

Dead on accurate description of the overnight phenom., and what the pop-culture references in newspapers were all about. Some pretty funny stuff, too, of no consequence, and probably already over. Once reported on, though, you have had several extreme nasty and humorless attempt to turn this into

69:

an article on the topic would need a compelling argument, not just a straightforward assertion, given that the sources come from across the political spectrum. If it was only far left sources repeating it, I would be inclined to give that position serious weight - not so much when it's the Globe

2474:

either to Romney's article or the election itself. While there are definitely notable-ish sources for this, it only has meaning in the context of the debate/election (or Romney as a whole) and this article is just a definition and a section saying that the internet found it funny (which we did).

1476:

shows the media storm this article has. Yes, that's current. We can't know whether this incident will be a memorable, long term issue that affects the presidential election, something to be discussed and learned from; or if it will be something that dies away. We can discuss that later, IF it

2931:

to tell whether this phrase will be noteworthy. A week is a long time in an election, and same too with our collective memory of interesting tidbits from debates. If there's analysis after the election, demonstrating the staying power of this phrase in history, only then would I support it's

2893:. Another poorly chosen phrase that has reached past the tipping point of notability. It has generated memes and parodies which if notable themselves could be included. Plenty of reliable sources dissecting how this reflects on Romney's stance on women issues in the election cycle. 223:

As such, the use of WP to push political memes is highly inappropriate, however if for some crazy reason this becomes something huge it can be added at a later time. At a very maximum this should be covered in the presidential debate article as it is not worthy of its own page.

680:

Romney did not just solicit help from MASSGap, and the MASSGap effort expanded once Romney signalled he wanted their help. Their previous chief organizers acknowledged this but asserted that it was their idea first, just that Romney ran with it as Governor-elect, which he

953:, which crystallized a major long-term criticism of Obama, and caught on precisely because it so neatly summarized in his own words a perceived antipathy to American business. Romney's malaprop about going above and beyond to recruit women means..... what????-- 430:

that a separate article isn't warranted. But given that its received mainstream media coverage (NBCNews.com had an article, I assume its already in this article), so its reasonable to have a paragraph or so somewhere, and to have the phrase not be a red-link.

2786:. This is the "thing" that got press, notice, crept into popular consciousness. The press it got is not in doubt, just that, since it is clearly a bunch of stupid (but funny) Clinton jokes, it does not belong on WP, and should have been speedy deleted as per 373:

of existing articles and those editors working on the other existing articles can decide whether the source information from Binders full of women belongs in those articles. If the Binders full of women there after reaches enough content, editors can create

2868:

as crap. Oh, and NPOV. And because this isn't a political game. And because nobody cares. And because neither Obama nor Romney would be particularly notable except as being poor choices and that one or both will end up having been president. Whoopee.

2061:

was moved because the Roanoke speech had no notability otherwise—it was known for the sound bite. Here the debate has notability and, for now, the sound bite has independent, non-inherited notability as well. I related the two because they had similar

1902:(emphasis mine). The countless scores of international reliable secondary sources that have written about "Binders full of women" do exactly that: the term "Binders full of women" is thoroughly explained in context, analyzed and interpreted (e.g. 2990:

It doesn't need to be a "turning point" to be notable, nor does it need to receive post-election analysis. Hindsight is not necessary; if notability is already established now, there is no sense in waiting for any further confirmation.

1934:

and revisit in a few months. Ongoing, widespread coverage of this in news outlets suggest that this meme is notable. Some of the deletion arguments seem to confuse the notability of the topic with personal feelings about the election.

1058:

Romney did not go out of his way to solicit women's resumes from just ONE source. The idea was out there, Romney ran with it. There is an argument over how much credit belongs to who, but not that Romney did not make women a priority.

2101:

debates (just as the article about the second debate has been merged into the article about the 2012 debates). Do you really think that the "Binders full of women" is more article-worthy than the entire debate in which it occurred?.

1953:

and revisit in a few months. Less and less coverage of this in news outlets suggest that this meme is non-notable. Some of the keep arguments seem to confuse the non-notability of the topic with personal feelings about the election.

1686:

Your personal opinion on words that "come out of the mouth of a politician" is not a good argument for deletion. There are plenty of words that "come out of the mouth of a politician" that do get a Knowledge article. See

184: 1477:

fades away. At the moment, its big and significant. Well documented, well sourced. At this time there is zero rationale to delete it. It would be further documented and explained had my edits been allowed to stay.

1179:

to second presidential debate article per Ritchie. Good lord, why on earth does anyone think we need an independent article on this? A shortened version of this material would do just fine in the article on the debate

2397:

Yes this will be quite the interesting decision if the article for the 2nd debate is effectively deleted/merged, yet the almmost nothing political attack on Romney is allowed to remain as a page. WP at it's best.

505:

of days, and the navel-gazing articles shortly thereafter. This one should be first to go. If it's worth anything at all in the long run (questionable), it should be mentioned in an article about the debate.--

2378:

was turned into a redirect, so a decision to merge means its merged to the now sole article on the debates. interesting that the redirect was done with no discussion either before, or after, as if it had never

2058: 2039: 2006: 616: 1344: 542:; indeed, it's still prominently on the front pages of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, two days after the debate. Maybe it'll die out in a few days. Maybe it'll get more traction like the equally overblown " 2286:

per Masem, Calwatch, and MZMcBride. I think this is definitely a viable search term, but I don't believe it has standalone significance and beliefs that it has lasting significance is textbook

1903: 1404: 1565:. Article has plenty of valid references to reliable sources. Most of the arguments for delete appear to be partisan; some of them actually require translation from wing-nut into English. — 1189: 538:

However silly the use of Romney's poor phrasing is, it's still an event that received large amounts of media coverage. Suggesting that it's of no consequence and probably already over is

887:"Keep" If in the next month or so it ceases to be relevant, then sure, delete it, but it does has the potential to be a significant moment in the election, so it deserves to be kept. 2188:

I feel we should not delete this because it is a popular internet meme. Many people who have heard it will want to see what it is and iwikipedia would obviously be a helpful site

426:

into an appropriate article. If there's a separate article on the debate, that'd be a good destination, otherwise, the article on the 2012 Presidential Race. Its obvious based on

2597:

Not necessarily. But when your reason for deletion is an extreme right-wing political rant, then it automatically qualifies as bad-faith, and your nomination should be trashed. ←

787:

Questions about the truth of his statement, and discussion in media of this being similar to affirmative action even though his party doesn't normally support it, both notable.

748: 178: 460:

in the AfD request is not a valid rationale for deletion; partisan opinions in either direction are not relevant to the deletion process.) Edit: Changed to Keep, see below. –

137: 664:

The controversy is that he claimed to have sought out women, when in reality the list he received was unsolicited. He is basically taking credit for something he didn't do.

2139:

and we can go back and forth: my position was and is only that this event is at least currently very notable (as evidenced by its great number of RS refs) with great

1424: 1384: 2675:

Yeah, I agree with Bugs -- the wording of the nomination is silly and unhelpful. But still, I don't think there's much call for a separate article of this title. -

1214: 1134:

Joe Biden's creepy laughs and behavior got MUCH more serious press, and directly related to the influence of the debate on the electorate, which this did not. --

483:

Inconsequential malapropism, not noticed immediately after by any of the serious media; no person with room-temp IQ failed to understand what he meant, womens'

2770:. Important to remind editors that BfoW is in fact not ONE thing but two, awkwardly and artificially shoehorned together. Fortunately, BOTH lead not just to 1364: 369:

are existing articles on the subject providing the topics against which "Binders full of women" is measured at AfD. The topic "Binders full of women" is a

61:

in an article, or in an article about the second debate (which appears to be merged into an article about all the debates at the moment). I can't tell

2972:, notability must be viewed through the lens of hindsight. We won't know whether this was a turning point/notable event independently, absent analysis 2262:

This is a classic example of WP:NOT. Exciting as this presidential election is to some people this is hardly encyclopedic. Quotes have their own wiki.

454:. The phrase is already covered appropriately in other articles; if it becomes more notable on its own, well, then the article can always be recreated. 144: 3056:

which candidate said it is long forgotten. This AfD isanother example of Wikipedians takingthemselves so seriously they don't know what is important.

3013:

what the effects were until we can actually ask that question - which is after the election. Otherwise... this is nothing more than a news report. --

1907: 577:, there's a pretty good chance that in a few months nobody will care. Even then it's likely to end up as a couple of sentences in the debate article. 391: 362: 110: 105: 1914: 114: 546:". I don't see why we wouldn't cover it in the appropriate articles. (But still agree that it's undue for it to have its own page at this time.) – 2515:

have a separate article about it. This phrase is better understood in context; we serve the reader better with a redirect placing it in context. -

2375: 1306: 1083: 977: 451: 383: 358: 333: 243: 345: 65:

from this discussion, because both positions rely strongly on guessing what may come, partisan assertions. The argument that it's POV to merely

2910:- has the concept of notability degraded to the point where anything that generates any semblance of Internet discussion is inherently notable? 97: 1202: 894: 2753:, this is of course not an attack, it’s releant, well referenced, and neutral. Some do not like it, but that’s not a reason to delete it. — 1474: 1155:

I initially said merge...but random meme stuff keeps piling up; now we have amusing Amazon reviews of random binders, amongst other stuff!

641:

So now that is part of the "controversy" as well? Only a conservative could be criticised by the left for trying to be inclusive of women

2661:

Arzel, could you please strike out your opinion about the so-called "war on women". That kind of stuff is inappropriate in a nomination.

2880: 2630: 2601: 2536: 1606: 1118: 788: 739: 619:. Sometimes simple expressions become notable, and the threshold for notability does not have to rise to the level of the notability of 1156: 2195: 1274: 1257: 2380: 2354:. I don't see why this cannot be discussed in a section in the presidential debate article. A redirect should be kept, of course. -- 698: 199: 1688: 620: 166: 2758: 2511:

per "You forgot Poland" precedent cited above by Legoktm. Just because something passes the notability threshold doesn't mean we

1598: 1495:

Above I mentioned the name of Anonymous209, who I feel abused his authority by deleting sourced content I had added. To show you

307: 260: 1185: 1007: 17: 1943: 1167: 555: 510: 469: 250:, so mention of this meme can belong on Knowledge, but I don't think there's enough content to stand on its own article. -- 2333:

Oh, and I have binders and binders full of historical women who need Knowledge articles, if anyone feels like helping. ;)

1823:

as an internet meme. It may be note that it is of political in nature, but that doesn't change the fact that it is WP:N.

1738: 1672: 1641: 1473:

because this is an obvious effort to sanitize wikipedia of this information. I didn't even get a chance to go into how

2612:

I think it is fair to simply ignore you in the future because you cannot look past the bias clouding your own vision.

160: 341: 3067: 3047: 3022: 3000: 2985: 2963: 2945: 2919: 2902: 2885: 2860: 2839: 2814: 2745: 2728: 2711: 2684: 2670: 2634: 2621: 2605: 2592: 2558: 2540: 2524: 2501: 2484: 2466: 2449: 2432: 2407: 2388: 2366: 2342: 2324: 2307: 2271: 2254: 2225: 2203: 2171: 2110: 2089: 2052: 2029: 1989: 1963: 1945: 1926: 1872: 1849: 1832: 1811: 1789: 1760: 1747: 1712: 1681: 1650: 1618: 1590: 1572: 1549: 1534: 1508: 1486: 1460: 1436: 1416: 1396: 1376: 1356: 1335: 1318: 1297: 1282: 1265: 1248: 1224: 1181: 1171: 1143: 1125: 1068: 1047: 1029: 1012: 989: 962: 938: 902: 878: 859: 840: 817: 796: 779: 760: 710: 690: 673: 659: 632: 603: 586: 559: 533: 514: 496: 473: 440: 417: 349: 309: 280: 262: 233: 79: 57:

isn't done here. There is, I think, a sufficient consensus that the phrase and subsequent meme should be mentioned

3043: 2165: 2083: 2023: 1855: 1730:

is not a reason to keep the article. Just because some quotes deserve an article does not mean that this one does.

1727: 1700: 1097: 101: 156: 3086: 2666: 2497: 2106: 2048: 1985: 1917:). The term is not just merely used. Thus this term has fulfilled Knowledge's inclusion criteria for neologisms. 1708: 1614: 1545: 1504: 1482: 756: 669: 628: 506: 40: 2741: 980:

is plenty sufficient of this ephemeral soundbite (Memorable line from the debate? Check. Meme? Check. Done.). --

2856: 2810: 1456: 1221: 1139: 1064: 1025: 997:

Clearly meets the notability requirements; arguments for deletion appear to mostly be that they don't like it.

958: 898: 836: 813: 686: 529: 492: 1093: 206: 2875: 2267: 2199: 1731: 1665: 1634: 1261: 1109: 792: 735: 375: 370: 2737: 2338: 2320: 1692: 1278: 1237: 1043: 950: 914: 612: 543: 2580: 337: 3082: 3039: 2928: 2870: 2680: 2520: 2384: 2298: 1959: 1845: 1783: 1581:

Do you suppose you could re-phrase your comment without the personal attacks on commentors in general?

1020:- passing news item not worthy of an encyclopedia. Pure POV and partisan. In depth studies don't exist. 731: 539: 436: 93: 85: 36: 2457:

to second presidential debate. Plausible search term, but not enough content for a standalone article.

1910: 221:

This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen".

219:

garbage that is highly unlikely to last any longer than the lame Big Bird issue from a few days prior.

2754: 2662: 2493: 2492:

attitude of the person who said it. It would be meaningless if anybody else had made the statement.

2462: 2191: 2102: 2067: 2044: 1981: 1704: 1696: 1610: 1541: 1500: 1478: 1210: 890: 752: 727: 665: 624: 458:

This is an attempt by the left to attack Mitt Romney and push the continued fictional "War on Womnen"

399: 305: 286: 258: 1327: 271:

Could you clarify what content should be merged? The phrase is already mentioned in that article. --

3018: 2996: 2981: 2959: 2941: 2898: 2852: 2835: 2806: 2724: 2250: 2140: 2063: 2002: 1828: 1452: 1331: 1218: 1135: 1060: 1021: 1003: 954: 855: 832: 809: 682: 525: 488: 192: 172: 2627: 2598: 2533: 2263: 2115:

No. I never suggested that. BFoW is a spinout of the debate: separate articles. Whether you or I

1941: 1569: 1244: 1163: 1102: 934: 875: 551: 465: 1997:

The meme itself is notable by RS and GNG (or at least overcovered online in the past week). Per

2480: 2445: 2428: 2420: 2360: 2334: 2316: 2287: 2242: 2132: 1867: 1806: 1756: 1432: 1412: 1392: 1372: 1352: 1314: 1293: 1233: 1087: 1039: 599: 574: 427: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3081:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

1664:

as everything that comes out of the mouth of a politician does not need a Knowledge article.

35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

2915: 2676: 2516: 2291: 2148: 2136: 2120: 1955: 1922: 1841: 1776: 775: 582: 432: 2617: 2588: 2458: 2403: 2221: 1586: 1530: 1514: 706: 655: 413: 395: 298: 251: 229: 74: 1980:, "If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." 382:

since there is no enduring importance/significance of this events in the context of (1)

3014: 2992: 2977: 2955: 2937: 2894: 2848: 2831: 2720: 2707: 2554: 2246: 2160: 2144: 2078: 2018: 1998: 1889: 1824: 1448: 1215:

Mark Antony's request for people to cut off their ears and give them to him temporarily

999: 697:

How do you know he didn't also seek out women? Tell me when you get to the top of the

336:. Not independently notable, long-lasting impact is very questionable at this time. -- 3063: 2827: 2802: 2798: 2787: 2302: 2238: 2128: 2124: 2096:

I don't agree that such a recent and mild utterance is notable, but even if it were,

1977: 1936: 1883: 1630: 1626: 1566: 1522: 1518: 1240: 1159: 985: 918: 872: 547: 461: 379: 276: 3005:

You are missing my main point: this is an event that took place in the course of an

1971:

and redirect to the article about the second presidential debate. Contrary to what

2476: 2441: 2424: 2356: 1859: 1798: 1428: 1408: 1388: 1368: 1348: 1310: 595: 294: 247: 216: 131: 2911: 2097: 1972: 1918: 1820: 1470: 1206: 771: 578: 387: 366: 290: 53: 2613: 2584: 2399: 2234: 2214: 1888:"...to support an article about a particular term we must cite what reliable 1582: 1526: 702: 651: 409: 225: 71: 3038:-- has achieved widespread coverage in reliable sources, i.e., notability. 2703: 2550: 2153: 2071: 2011: 2009:—in this moment, it's notable. If that changes, re-nominate for AfD then. 3058: 1273:

Keep; or merge. Seems this has picked up enough steam to stick around. --

981: 272: 2315:

This is one of the funniest things I've seen in a long time. Thank you.

2057:

Yes, I noticed that, and no one suggested renaming the debate article.

643: 2038:

Czar, I think you're overlooking something important. The result of

2440:

And someone pls go get those binders and upload them to Wikisource!

2066:

going into their AfDs, but one has had more time to develop since.

2040:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

285:

Not really, as the subject isn't my area of expertise, but since

3075:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

321: 524:

something else, and the WP article as written is an example. --

2784:

Overnight bloom of stupid B or H Clinton/Heffner/Beyonce jokes

2579:

Bad faith?!? Really? I suppose you think there should be a

1345:

list of United States of America-related deletion discussions

2151:

it loses that moment's notability before striking it down.

2135:'s text). It can exist on its own. Elevate the argument to 1775: 1513:

I suggest you remove your personal attacks and read up on

1405:

list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions

2549:

This has gone on long enough. Go back to your corners.

1197:

per other delete recommendations, or as a second choice

594:- Not an encyclopedic topic, Election 2012 fooliganism. 378:

spin-off. As it stands, now, the topic also falls under

2005:

and should stay up. This AfD share much in common with

1602: 1203:

Misunderstanding of metonymy by Mitt Romney's opponents

127: 123: 119: 1205:. Perhaps if Knowledge had existed during the time of 191: 2830:

political bullshit that does not deserve an article.

1469:

pushing to delete it. The name should be changed to

2127:) and doesn't conflict with other policy (including 2936:as an element in the 2012 campaign page itself. -- 297:, it can potentially have a place on Knowledge. -- 1854:Rubbish it may be, but it certainly doesn't lack 571:delete with option for recreation in a year or so 334:Second_U.S._presidential_debate_of_2012#Reception 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3089:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1497:what a POV pushing, lowlife this Anonymous209 is 2851:as it was publicized to attack his reputation. 1425:list of Internet-related deletion discussions 1385:list of Politics-related deletion discussions 1256:(but link to the original article if merged) 205: 8: 2794:Awkward attempt to shoehorn partisan attacks 1423:Note: This debate has been included in the 1403:Note: This debate has been included in the 1383:Note: This debate has been included in the 1363:Note: This debate has been included in the 1343:Note: This debate has been included in the 2626:Spoken like the typical Romney teabagger. ← 2719:, notability indicated by press coverage. 2565:The following discussion has been closed. 2545: 1625:Yes, that was a serious violation of both 1422: 1402: 1382: 1362: 1342: 2950:It's not too soon. The sources are there 2847:Seems like scandal mongering contrary to 1365:list of News-related deletion discussions 392:United States presidential election, 2012 363:United States presidential election, 2012 289:, that doesn't matter. If information is 2376:Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 1307:Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 1084:Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 978:Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 452:Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 384:Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 359:Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 244:Second U.S. presidential debate of 2012 1326:keep for now. revisit deletion later. 2532:- Obviously a bad-faith nomination. ← 2357:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 2245:precedent is worth following here. -- 1291:example), i.e., just use the phrase. 1209:and he had actually spoken the words 976:and please do not merge. Coverage at 7: 2374:since this AFD started, the article 1607:making a mountain out of a molehill 1213:, we would have an article titled 24: 1976:second presidential debate. Per 1599:the pot calling the kettle black 871:-- Can you elaborate on that? — 642: 2968:Sure, but in the context of an 2123:, BFoW has RS (ergo notable by 2119:it's notable doesn't matter—by 1689:Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy 1447:Obvious propaganda contrary to 621:Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 2147:, we can afford to wait a bit 1754:VV: Thanks for your research. 246:. The article has coverage in 52:. The argument that it passes 1: 1236:precedent, which is similar. 1211:Shakespeare attributed to him 1098:Joe Biden condescending laugh 3068:05:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC) 3048:17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 3023:18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 3001:18:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2986:17:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2964:16:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2946:16:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2920:14:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2903:11:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2886:07:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2861:06:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2840:06:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2815:21:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2746:16:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2729:16:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2712:12:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2685:07:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2671:05:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2635:01:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2622:20:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2606:05:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2593:05:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2559:01:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 2541:03:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2525:21:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2502:02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC) 2485:17:30, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2467:16:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2450:14:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2433:09:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2408:14:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2389:07:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2367:06:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2343:05:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2325:05:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2308:22:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 2272:17:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 2255:16:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 2226:08:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 2204:01:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 2172:00:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 2111:21:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 2090:16:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 2053:01:31, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 2030:00:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 1990:00:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 1964:02:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC) 1946:00:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC) 1927:15:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1896:, not books and papers that 1892:, such as books and papers, 1873:23:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1850:06:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1833:01:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1812:01:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1790:23:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1761:05:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC) 1748:20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC) 1713:01:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1682:23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1651:23:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1619:01:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1591:23:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1573:19:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1550:00:24, 22 October 2012 (UTC) 1535:16:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1509:16:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC) 1487:19:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1461:18:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1437:17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1417:17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1397:17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1377:17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1357:17:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1336:17:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1319:17:14, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1298:16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1283:16:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1266:07:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1249:05:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1225:04:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1190:03:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1172:02:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1144:05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1126:01:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1069:05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1048:00:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 1030:22:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 1013:20:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 990:20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 963:05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 939:19:59, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 903:20:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 879:20:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 860:17:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 841:17:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 818:05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 797:17:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 780:17:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 761:17:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 711:19:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 691:05:47, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 674:17:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 660:17:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 633:16:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 604:16:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 587:16:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 560:15:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 534:15:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 515:14:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 497:14:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 474:14:53, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 441:14:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 418:13:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 350:13:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 310:09:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC) 281:20:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 263:13:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 234:12:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC) 80:07:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC) 3106: 2043:no one is suggesting that. 1701:Read my lips: no new taxes 848:This is not even a topic. 215:This is nothing more than 2763:@ 24 October, 2012; 19:49 2379:existed.(mercurywoodrose) 2143:for expansion, and since 869:This is not even a topic. 3078:Please do not modify it. 2568:Please do not modify it. 1605:, accusing me making of 32:Please do not modify it. 1094:Paul Ryan water gulping 2736:obvious attack page. 1886:which stipulates that 1238:Talk:You forgot Poland 1092:We didn't allow for a 332:verifiable content to 2007:You didn't build that 1693:You didn't build that 1603:personal attack of me 951:You didn't build that 915:You didn't build that 613:You didn't build that 544:You didn't build that 456:(I'll also note that 94:Binders full of women 86:Binders full of women 2932:inclusion, and only 1697:Tear down this wall! 1182:The Devil's Advocate 507:Piledhigheranddeeper 2581:Horses and Bayonets 2278:AfDs full of breaks 2001:, this article has 1882:- article fulfills 1728:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 723:I vote to delete. 573:A textbook case of 2583:article as well. 2472:Merge and redirect 2455:Merge and redirect 1894:say about the term 749:this is not a vote 455: 287:AfD is not cleanup 48:The result was 2764: 2652: 2651: 2421:You forgot Poland 2306: 2243:You forgot Poland 2194:comment added by 1890:secondary sources 1439: 1419: 1399: 1379: 1359: 1234:You forgot Poland 893:comment added by 747:Please note that 744: 730:comment added by 540:WP:CRYSTALBALLing 446: 3097: 3080: 3040:Nomoskedasticity 2883: 2878: 2873: 2762: 2738:William Jockusch 2570: 2546: 2363: 2300: 2296: 2218: 2206: 2170: 2168: 2163: 2158: 2145:there is no rush 2088: 2086: 2081: 2076: 2028: 2026: 2021: 2016: 1939: 1870: 1864: 1856:reliable sources 1809: 1803: 1788: 1786: 1781: 1745: 1736: 1679: 1670: 1648: 1639: 1123: 1116: 1107: 1011: 905: 853: 808:no set-asides.-- 743: 724: 646: 450:and redirect to 371:WP:REDUNDANTFORK 303: 295:reliable sources 256: 248:reliable sources 240:Merge / redirect 210: 209: 195: 147: 135: 117: 77: 34: 3105: 3104: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3087:deletion review 3076: 2881: 2876: 2871: 2761: 2663:Anythingyouwant 2566: 2494:TruthtellernoBS 2365: 2361: 2292: 2280: 2216: 2189: 2166: 2161: 2154: 2152: 2103:Anythingyouwant 2084: 2079: 2072: 2070: 2045:Anythingyouwant 2024: 2019: 2012: 2010: 1982:Anythingyouwant 1937: 1868: 1860: 1807: 1799: 1784: 1777: 1739: 1732: 1705:Victor Victoria 1673: 1666: 1642: 1635: 1611:Victor Victoria 1542:TruthtellernoBS 1501:TruthtellernoBS 1479:TruthtellernoBS 1119: 1110: 1103: 998: 949:No relation to 928: 927: 923: 922: 895:132.161.162.241 888: 849: 753:Victor Victoria 725: 666:Victor Victoria 625:Victor Victoria 617:survived an AFD 615:article, which 408:As nominator. 299: 252: 152: 143: 108: 92: 89: 75: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3103: 3101: 3092: 3091: 3071: 3070: 3050: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 2976:the election. 2922: 2905: 2888: 2863: 2853:Anna Frodesiak 2842: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2807:Anonymous209.6 2791: 2768:Point of Order 2765: 2757: 2748: 2731: 2714: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2572: 2571: 2562: 2561: 2544: 2543: 2527: 2505: 2504: 2488: 2487: 2469: 2452: 2435: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2392: 2391: 2369: 2355: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2328: 2327: 2310: 2279: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2257: 2241:. I think the 2228: 2207: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2033: 2032: 1992: 1966: 1948: 1929: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1835: 1814: 1792: 1774:per goethean 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1576: 1575: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1490: 1489: 1463: 1441: 1440: 1420: 1400: 1380: 1360: 1339: 1338: 1321: 1300: 1285: 1268: 1251: 1227: 1219:Metropolitan90 1192: 1174: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1136:Anonymous209.6 1129: 1128: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1061:Anonymous209.6 1051: 1050: 1032: 1022:Jason from nyc 1015: 992: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 955:Anonymous209.6 942: 941: 925: 924: 920: 919: 907: 906: 884: 883: 882: 881: 863: 862: 843: 833:Anonymous209.6 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 810:Anonymous209.6 800: 799: 782: 765: 764: 763: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 695: 694: 693: 683:Anonymous209.6 636: 635: 606: 589: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 526:Anonymous209.6 518: 517: 499: 489:Anonymous209.6 477: 476: 421: 420: 403: 352: 317: 316: 315: 314: 313: 312: 266: 265: 213: 212: 149: 88: 83: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3102: 3090: 3088: 3084: 3079: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3065: 3061: 3060: 3054: 3051: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3034: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2930: 2926: 2923: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2906: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2892: 2889: 2887: 2884: 2879: 2874: 2867: 2864: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2843: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2825: 2822: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2795: 2792: 2789: 2785: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2777: 2776:speedy delete 2773: 2769: 2766: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2749: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2732: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2715: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2698: 2697: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2636: 2632: 2629: 2628:Baseball Bugs 2625: 2624: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2603: 2600: 2599:Baseball Bugs 2596: 2595: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2547: 2542: 2538: 2535: 2534:Baseball Bugs 2531: 2528: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2506: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2470: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2453: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2436: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2415: 2414: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2373: 2370: 2368: 2364: 2358: 2353: 2350: 2349: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2311: 2309: 2304: 2301:(note: not a 2299: 2297: 2295: 2289: 2285: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2264:Capitalismojo 2261: 2258: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2211: 2208: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2187: 2186: 2173: 2169: 2164: 2159: 2157: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2077: 2075: 2069: 2068:WP:ASSUMECLUE 2065: 2060: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2041: 2037: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2017: 2015: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1993: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1952: 1949: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1940: 1933: 1930: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1885: 1881: 1878: 1874: 1871: 1865: 1863: 1857: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1836: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1815: 1813: 1810: 1804: 1802: 1796: 1793: 1791: 1787: 1782: 1780: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1762: 1759: 1758: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1743: 1737: 1735: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1680: 1678: 1677: 1671: 1669: 1663: 1660: 1659: 1652: 1649: 1647: 1646: 1640: 1638: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1574: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1560: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475: 1472: 1467: 1464: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1443: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1421: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1401: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1322: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1301: 1299: 1296: 1295: 1289: 1286: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1252: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1228: 1226: 1223: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1193: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1178: 1175: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1124: 1122: 1117: 1115: 1114: 1108: 1106: 1101: 1099: 1095: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1033: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1009: 1005: 1001: 996: 993: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 972: 971: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 940: 936: 932: 931: 916: 912: 909: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 886: 885: 880: 877: 874: 870: 867: 866: 865: 864: 861: 857: 852: 847: 844: 842: 838: 834: 830: 827: 826: 819: 815: 811: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 798: 794: 790: 789:69.243.159.96 786: 783: 781: 777: 773: 769: 766: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 745: 741: 737: 733: 732:129.33.49.252 729: 722: 721: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 663: 662: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 640: 639: 638: 637: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 607: 605: 601: 597: 593: 590: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 569: 568: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 536: 535: 531: 527: 522: 521: 520: 519: 516: 512: 508: 503: 500: 498: 494: 490: 486: 482: 479: 478: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 453: 449: 445: 444: 443: 442: 438: 434: 429: 425: 419: 415: 411: 407: 404: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 376:Summary style 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 353: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 318: 311: 308: 306: 304: 302: 296: 292: 288: 284: 283: 282: 278: 274: 270: 269: 268: 267: 264: 261: 259: 257: 255: 249: 245: 241: 238: 237: 236: 235: 231: 227: 222: 218: 208: 204: 201: 198: 194: 190: 186: 183: 180: 177: 174: 171: 168: 165: 162: 158: 155: 154:Find sources: 150: 146: 142: 139: 133: 129: 125: 121: 116: 112: 107: 103: 99: 95: 91: 90: 87: 84: 82: 81: 78: 73: 68: 64: 60: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3077: 3074: 3057: 3052: 3035: 3010: 3006: 2973: 2969: 2951: 2933: 2924: 2907: 2890: 2865: 2844: 2823: 2793: 2783: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2750: 2733: 2716: 2699: 2567: 2529: 2512: 2508: 2471: 2454: 2437: 2416: 2371: 2351: 2335:SarahStierch 2317:SarahStierch 2312: 2294:I, Jethrobot 2293: 2283: 2259: 2230: 2209: 2196:50.149.72.36 2190:— Preceding 2155: 2141:WP:POTENTIAL 2116: 2073: 2064:WP:POTENTIAL 2013: 2003:WP:POTENTIAL 1994: 1968: 1950: 1931: 1897: 1893: 1887: 1879: 1861: 1837: 1816: 1800: 1794: 1778: 1771: 1757:CarolMooreDC 1755: 1741: 1740: 1733: 1675: 1674: 1667: 1661: 1644: 1643: 1636: 1562: 1496: 1465: 1444: 1323: 1302: 1294:CarolMooreDC 1292: 1287: 1275:216.81.81.82 1270: 1258:71.52.199.48 1253: 1229: 1198: 1194: 1176: 1152: 1120: 1112: 1111: 1104: 1091: 1079: 1040:Sally Season 1034: 1017: 994: 973: 929: 910: 889:— Preceding 868: 850: 845: 828: 784: 767: 726:— Preceding 647: 608: 591: 570: 501: 484: 480: 457: 447: 423: 422: 405: 354: 329: 325: 300: 253: 239: 220: 217:Silly season 214: 202: 196: 188: 181: 175: 169: 163: 153: 140: 66: 62: 58: 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 2423:precedent. 2381:99.35.51.50 1973:User:Amsaim 1956:Malerooster 1207:Mark Antony 911:Strong Keep 433:Umbralcorax 388:Mitt Romney 380:WP:NOT#NEWS 367:Mitt Romney 338:Vejvančický 179:free images 3011:don't know 2803:WP:CSD#G11 2799:WP:CSD#G10 2755:Fitoschido 2459:FurrySings 2362:reply here 2288:WP:CRYSTAL 2133:WP:CRYSTAL 1160:2001:db8:: 1100:article... 1088:WP:NOTNEWS 1038:chimed in. 935:Talk to me 575:WP:NOTNEWS 548:2001:db8:: 462:2001:db8:: 396:Uzma Gamal 301:Ritchie333 291:verifiable 254:Ritchie333 3083:talk page 3015:Lord Roem 2993:Everyking 2978:Lord Roem 2956:Everyking 2952:right now 2938:Lord Roem 2895:Insomesia 2832:Truthsort 2788:WP:CSD#A7 2774:, but to 2721:Everyking 2247:MZMcBride 2149:to see if 2137:WP:COMMON 1900:the term" 1825:Casprings 1785:talk page 1742:Strikeout 1734:Automatic 1676:Strikeout 1668:Automatic 1645:Strikeout 1637:Automatic 1429:• Gene93k 1409:• Gene93k 1389:• Gene93k 1369:• Gene93k 1349:• Gene93k 1328:Spgilbert 1180:itself.-- 1113:Phightins 851:North8000 37:talk page 3085:or in a 3007:election 2970:election 2929:too soon 2927:. It is 2509:Redirect 2417:Redirect 2284:Redirect 2239:Calwatch 2231:Redirect 2210:Redirect 2192:unsigned 1938:Gobōnobō 1819:Clearly 1567:goethean 1515:WP:CIVIL 1241:Calwatch 1232:per the 1008:Contribs 891:unsigned 873:goethean 740:contribs 728:unsigned 699:mountain 648:Facepalm 346:contribs 326:Redirect 138:View log 39:or in a 2849:WP:SOAP 2759:track] 2631:carrots 2602:carrots 2537:carrots 2513:have to 2477:Gundato 2425:Legoktm 2372:Comment 2313:Comment 1999:WP:TIND 1597:That's 1449:WP:SOAP 1311:Kaldari 829:Comment 596:Carrite 485:resumes 428:NOTNEWS 185:WP refs 173:scholar 111:protect 106:history 2925:Delete 2912:Kansan 2908:Delete 2877:unique 2866:Delete 2845:Delete 2828:WP:NOT 2824:Delete 2772:Delete 2734:Delete 2700:Delete 2260:Delete 2233:, per 2129:WP:NEO 2121:policy 1978:WP:NOT 1969:Delete 1951:Delete 1919:Amsaim 1884:WP:NEO 1842:Nevard 1838:Delete 1662:Delete 1631:WP:AGF 1627:WP:NPA 1601:. See 1523:WP:NPA 1519:WP:AGF 1453:Warden 1445:Delete 1254:Delete 1222:(talk) 1199:rename 1195:Delete 1018:Delete 974:Delete 846:Delete 772:72Dino 768:Delete 681:did.-- 592:Delete 579:Mangoe 502:delete 481:Delete 406:Delete 390:, (3) 386:, (2) 355:Delete 157:Google 115:delete 59:either 3064:talk 2974:after 2882:names 2614:Arzel 2585:Arzel 2400:Arzel 2352:Merge 2235:Masem 2117:think 1869:TALK 1808:TALK 1583:Arzel 1527:Arzel 1303:Merge 1230:Merge 1177:Merge 1080:Merge 703:Arzel 652:Arzel 448:Merge 424:merge 410:Arzel 330:merge 226:Arzel 200:JSTOR 161:books 145:Stats 132:views 124:watch 120:links 63:which 16:< 3053:Keep 3044:talk 3036:Keep 3019:talk 2997:talk 2982:talk 2960:talk 2942:talk 2934:then 2916:talk 2899:talk 2891:Keep 2857:talk 2836:talk 2826:Per 2811:talk 2751:Keep 2742:talk 2725:talk 2717:Keep 2708:talk 2704:Tarc 2681:talk 2677:Pete 2667:talk 2618:talk 2589:talk 2555:talk 2551:Tarc 2530:Keep 2521:talk 2517:Pete 2498:talk 2481:talk 2463:talk 2446:talk 2442:Jane 2438:Keep 2429:talk 2419:per 2404:talk 2385:talk 2339:talk 2321:talk 2268:talk 2251:talk 2237:and 2217:ASEM 2200:talk 2156:czar 2107:talk 2098:WP:N 2074:czar 2059:YDBT 2049:talk 2014:czar 1995:Keep 1986:talk 1960:talk 1932:Keep 1923:talk 1880:Keep 1846:talk 1829:talk 1821:WP:N 1817:Keep 1795:Keep 1779:NYSM 1772:Keep 1709:talk 1629:and 1615:talk 1587:talk 1563:Keep 1546:talk 1531:talk 1521:and 1517:and 1505:talk 1483:talk 1466:Keep 1457:talk 1433:talk 1413:talk 1393:talk 1373:talk 1353:talk 1332:talk 1324:Keep 1315:talk 1288:Keep 1279:talk 1271:KEEP 1262:talk 1245:talk 1217:. -- 1186:talk 1168:diff 1153:Keep 1140:talk 1086:per 1065:talk 1044:talk 1035:Keep 1026:talk 1004:Talk 1000:Dori 995:Keep 986:talk 959:talk 926:hale 899:talk 856:talk 837:talk 814:talk 793:talk 785:Keep 776:talk 757:talk 736:talk 707:talk 687:talk 670:talk 656:talk 629:talk 609:Keep 600:talk 583:talk 556:diff 530:talk 511:talk 493:talk 470:diff 437:talk 414:talk 400:talk 342:talk 328:and 277:talk 230:talk 193:FENS 167:news 128:logs 102:talk 98:edit 72:Wily 67:have 54:WP:N 3059:DGG 2303:bot 2131:or 2125:GNG 1898:use 1862:dci 1858:. 1801:dci 1525:. 1471:409 1305:to 1201:to 1164:rfc 1096:or 1082:to 982:BDD 937:) 930:dad 917:. 701:. 650:. 552:rfc 466:rfc 293:by 273:BDD 242:to 207:TWL 136:– ( 3066:) 3046:) 3021:) 2999:) 2984:) 2962:) 2954:. 2944:) 2918:) 2901:) 2872:No 2869:-- 2859:) 2838:) 2813:) 2805:-- 2801:, 2778:. 2744:) 2727:) 2710:) 2683:) 2669:) 2633:→ 2620:) 2604:→ 2591:) 2557:) 2539:→ 2523:) 2500:) 2483:) 2465:) 2448:) 2431:) 2406:) 2387:) 2341:) 2323:) 2305:!) 2290:. 2270:) 2253:) 2224:) 2213:-- 2202:) 2109:) 2051:) 1988:) 1962:) 1954:-- 1925:) 1913:, 1906:, 1866:| 1848:) 1831:) 1805:| 1711:) 1703:. 1699:, 1695:, 1691:, 1633:. 1617:) 1609:. 1589:) 1548:) 1533:) 1507:) 1485:) 1459:) 1451:. 1435:) 1427:. 1415:) 1407:. 1395:) 1387:. 1375:) 1367:. 1355:) 1347:. 1334:) 1317:) 1309:. 1281:) 1264:) 1247:) 1188:) 1170:) 1166:| 1142:) 1105:Go 1090:. 1067:) 1059:-- 1046:) 1028:) 1006:☯ 988:) 961:) 901:) 858:) 839:) 816:) 795:) 778:) 759:) 751:. 742:) 738:• 709:) 689:) 672:) 658:) 631:) 623:. 602:) 585:) 558:) 554:| 532:) 513:) 495:) 472:) 468:| 439:) 416:) 365:, 361:, 357:- 348:) 344:| 324:) 322:ec 279:) 232:) 187:) 130:| 126:| 122:| 118:| 113:| 109:| 104:| 100:| 3062:( 3042:( 3017:( 2995:( 2980:( 2958:( 2940:( 2914:( 2897:( 2855:( 2834:( 2809:( 2740:( 2723:( 2706:( 2679:( 2665:( 2616:( 2587:( 2553:( 2519:( 2496:( 2479:( 2461:( 2444:( 2427:( 2402:( 2383:( 2359:| 2337:( 2319:( 2266:( 2249:( 2222:t 2220:( 2215:M 2198:( 2167:· 2162:· 2105:( 2085:· 2080:· 2047:( 2025:· 2020:· 1984:( 1958:( 1921:( 1915:4 1911:3 1908:2 1904:1 1844:( 1827:( 1707:( 1613:( 1585:( 1570:ॐ 1544:( 1529:( 1503:( 1481:( 1455:( 1431:( 1411:( 1391:( 1371:( 1351:( 1330:( 1313:( 1277:( 1260:( 1243:( 1184:( 1162:( 1138:( 1121:! 1063:( 1042:( 1024:( 1010:☽ 1002:☾ 984:( 957:( 933:( 921:W 897:( 876:ॐ 854:( 835:( 812:( 791:( 774:( 755:( 734:( 705:( 685:( 668:( 654:( 627:( 598:( 581:( 550:( 528:( 509:( 491:( 464:( 435:( 412:( 402:) 398:( 340:( 320:( 275:( 228:( 211:) 203:· 197:· 189:· 182:· 176:· 170:· 164:· 159:( 151:( 148:) 141:· 134:) 96:( 76:D

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women - Knowledge

Index