1878:, every local taxpayer activism committee, every church bake sale committee, every neighbourhood watch committee, every independent furniture store, every fire department, every police department, every social planning council, every local retail or service business that ever existed at all. But that's not sustainable, or encyclopedic — which is exactly
1125:
things, they are not portable. Therefore unlike books, movies, people, and many other things they are not easily accessible to people far distant from where they are located. Therefore it is not a good business model for the
Singapore papers to write in great depth about many restaurants in Winnipeg (and vice versa).
1893:
And again with the illogical and invalid comparisons? Poets and musicians, for example, are also not topics where every one that exists at all automatically gets a
Knowledge (XXG) article just because they got covered about in the local paper for local-interest distinctions like winning a high-school
1102:
You are defining "local" arbitrarily and idiosyncratically. You define
Manitoba (again: bigger than Spain, as populous as Estonia) as a mere locality. Obviously by this standard we should cut our back our articles on Estonian history, geography, and culture by 90%. Why not "western Canada" as just a
1812:
BTW the article could be expanded quite a bit. In the same way an article about a pianist might describe her technique, or about an athlete his statistics, or about a playwright his go-to character types and plots and so forth -- so could this article describe the cusine in more detail. We have the
1441:
I get that you think "It's a restaurant. It's a large room where people perform a bodily function. They are all the same". You're not an epicure. But... food is important! There are shows about food. There are books about food -- lots of them! There are chef schools. It's a whole subculture! People
1124:
You're defining "local" arbitrarily to suit your particular desire to delete this article. Obviously you are not going to get lots of in-depth material on restaurants in
Winnipeg in the Singapore papers and vice versa. That is the nature of restaurants. Unlike books, movies, people, and many other
196:
The fact mentioned in the text that "nothing was announced on the news, the restaurant's website, or anywhere on the internet" should be a clue to the fact that this restaurant lacked notability while it was still functioning, even more so when it is closed. A mere 150 hits in Google, mostly lists
1287:
make it a topic of "much wider than just
Winnipeg alone" interest. No restaurant on the planet would ever fail GNG if purely local coverage in the local media were enough to make it permanently notable — but Knowledge (XXG) is an international encyclopedia, not a local one, so things which are of
1774:
Anyway... you think there are only a few hundred restaurants in the world that should have articles. Maybe there are only a few hundred poets in history that should have articles. Few hundred kings, few hundred actors, few hundred athletes, few hundred politicians. We can fit the whole deal in a
845:
According to its article -- I recommend a read! -- it is distributed throughout
Manitoba and is seen by ten percent of the population. The percentage of the adult population that reads the paper must be a good deal higher. This is actually quite remarkable. It's widely read throughout this large
532:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.
393:
1642:
smaller set than "all restaurants that exist". Most restaurants are either franchises (where there isn't enough variation to write about each one) or just grills or fast-food places or holes-in-the-wall (again, not enough culinary distinction) And these restaurants aren't usually going to have
1278:
pass GNG if local coverage alone were enough. But for the same reasons that we don't automatically deem every police department or fire department or public library branch in existence to automatically qualify for its own standalone article, every restaurant in existence can't be automatically
1922:
By comparison, "only German restaurant in its own city" is not in and of itself a reason why a restaurant gets an encyclopedia article — if it were the first or only German restaurant in all of Canada, then that might potentially count toward making it more notable than the norm, but we can't
1239:
Assuming "yes", which I have to assume, shall we also delete all or most of our articles on schools and teams and so forth in
Winnipeg -- and all other cities? Do you think we should have not 5,000,000 articles but maybe just 2,000,000? Or you do you have a particular and personal aversion to
1052:"Local interest" does not automatically correspond to "suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia". If a topic cannot claim objective passage of a subject-specific notability criterion, but instead its notability relies on "GNG because media coverage exists", then at least some of the coverage
543:
This is something that editors need to read and get up to speed on. Anyway, the article contains four references that, now matter how you squint or spin it, are "in depth" and "reliable" and "independent of the subject" and also in notable venues, if those
English words have any meaning, so
1505:
Restaurants are important part of the culture of a great city, just as musical theater and science lectures are. I'm sure a lot of people would prefer we don't cover other low-brow popular-culture stuff comic books and rap music and ball teams. What can I say? We do. It's part of our
558:
I mean I guess you could answer the above by saying "no it doesn't". You could say "don't care, just not notable to me" or "the article is written in
Spanish" or "it's just a blank page" or any other wrong thing. This would be only a slight step down from the arguments I have seen so
507:
was not intended to exclude very large metropolitan daily papers (which would mean excluding all but a small handful of newspapers worldwide, for all subjects), and I have never seen it taken this way, until now. It's completely outside the letter, spirit, and prior application of
1374:"Parks and restaurants are not necessarily equivalent topics that are subject to the same inclusion criteria" is news to me. Another person could make the point "just a patch of grass, they all look alike, delete" for parks. "Just another building, delete" and so forth. I
1575:
I'm not fundamentally opposed to the concept of restaurants as a phenomenon, but that sure is a cute strawman. But every restaurant that exists at all cannot be inherently notable just because it and some local media coverage of it exist. What makes a restaurant
1442:
talk about food -- they do! "Where shall we go for dinner" is asked a lot more than "do you prefer the Poetic Eddas or the Prose Eddas?". Most people consider the former question more pressing and are more likely to have an opinion on it. Sad (possibly) but true.
1531:
Another person might say "OMG not another article about a pop album. They are all the same, just noise, so regardless of how much notice it got: delete". "Another article about a play? In other words some geeks yakking on a stage, same as every play. Delete".
1345:). There are two other articles in regional media which I can't see how long they are (paywall) but look to be several hundred words. This is in addition to several other smaller notices, and long reviews but in less important venues. The article meets
1180:
notice. Sports teams, libraries, parks, schools, buildings, companies, and yes restaurants are part of this. If you wish to engage fully in helping the reader form a sense for the culture of a great city and region than you need to describe these
391:
Two points of clarification. First, Google hits: You are obviously not aware of a certain peculiarity in the hit counting in a Google search. When you make a search, you have to ignore the count number coming up on the first page of results, like
415:
than in this one local (=Winnipeg) paper. No coverage from non-local (=non-Winnipeg) papers, no coverage in any other local (=Winnipeg] paper. (I assume there are other newspapers in
Winnipeg.) I could add that it does not even look as if
1240:
restaurants in particular? Maybe you had a bad experience in a restaurant or something, and if so I'm sorry, but what really does that have to with building an encyclopedia, which is what we are supposed to be trying to do here?
1475:
spend their money and time on musical theater or science lectures rather than eating out. But its just a fact that people eat at restaurants a lot. They do! They care a lot about the difference between German and Thai and even
1018:
does — but getting a local non-chain restaurant of no enduring or encyclopedic significance over GNG just because local coverage exists is not one of those contexts. A restaurant in Winnipeg does not pass AUD just because the
618:— the location of the publication vis-à-vis the location of the topic is where AUD comes into play. That is, a piece of coverage of a restaurant would pass AUD if it appears in a geographically-removed publication such as the
1411:
on which we would have an article. By your criteria there are probably only a few hundred restaurants in the entire world on which we would have articles (most of those in very large cities, which of course would introduce
1990:
Concur with all the above Deletes. This is just a local restaurant, with no indication of notability. There must be hundreds of thousands of such places worldwide, there needs to be more significance than 'it exists'.
922:
and local supermarket circulars and similar papers of that type and say "Well, all these are merely local papers. There's really no difference between any of them"... that's just silly. Of course they're different, very
165:
401:
1382:. For that guy it was buildings, for you it's restaurants, for another guy it's parks or sports teams: "I don't care to read about such things so no one else should be able to". Can you all take a bigger view please?
1902:
when a poet or a musician crosses the line into notability. A poet, for example, can win or be nominated for a notable national literary award, or a musician can win or be nominated for a Grammy or a Juno — and as
423:
Having said this, I am glad that you have cleaned up the article. If the result should be "Keep", it is surely more acceptable than the original version. Very much so, good job! But my nomination stands. Regards!
502:
to be a local paper for some city in New York State. This is not what is meant by "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation". It doesn't matter how hard you squint:
817:
Well, yes, we do cover quite a lot of subjects here. But we do not have to delete another article to make room for this one, or anything like that, so I'm not sure what you're so exercised about.
473:
It's not a vote. To delete an article, there has to be some some sort of attempt, even if feeble, at policy-based argument. Otherwise policies mean nothing. I call on the closer to consider this.
346:
correct in this nomination and the comments so far, I'm wondering... "local paper" for chrissakes, Winnipeg is sprawling metropolis with 663,617 (and that's just inside the city limits) and the
1142:
So this is different from books written in Manitoba or record albums made in Manitoba. People in Singapore can obtain and use those! So the Singapore papers are more likely to write about them.
644:, but that doesn't mean every hipster gourmet chip stand in Williamsburg gets to have a Knowledge (XXG) article the moment it's gotten reviewed in the NYT's food section — and so does the
1721:
OK... you continue to use the phrase "local paper" and I guess you always will and you are simply unable to differentiate between a paper with a circulation of 140,000 (on Saturdays) and
231:
1023:
also has readership in Brandon and Thompson; it passes AUD only when newspapers in Saskatoon or Regina or Calgary or Vancouver or Toronto are starting to show that it's getting noted
118:
795:
about it compared to other German-cuisine restaurants, I'd say keep. But there's no evidence of that being shown here at all. If it were sourceable as having something approaching
1616:
warrant encyclopedia articles, whether you or I like that fact or not, because "restaurants whose existence is actually noteworthy for some genuinely encyclopedic reason" is a
338:
Also this is not a promotional article and clearly is not the work of a PR flack (the article could stand some improvement though). PR operatives are seldom hired to represent
159:
537:"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline... "Sources" should be secondary sources...
214:
197:
and blogs, two book mentions (plain restaurant listings), five news mentions in five years (all in same local newspaper. No way this restaurant meets notability guidelines.
716:
248:
2013:
to be met we'd need to see articles from other provinces or countries--which we do see for many nationally or internationally notable restos. We just don't see it here.
1201:
has ten members. A quick reveals that all of these are either much less well referenced than Gasthaus Gutenberger, or also ref'd to so-called "local" sources, or both.
1684:
there's enough unique about the place (only German restaurant in town!) or its long-lived enough, or whatever it has such that enough notice is attracted to pass the
1680:
But a restaurant where there's a master chef preparing unique dishes from scratch including butchering his own cattle and what have you... that's a different matter
991:
give some newspapers a pass as automatically more regional, automatically more able to magically GNG a purely local-interest hometown topic, than others are. The
654:
get a Knowledge (XXG) article just because I've been in it a couple of times for reasons of no substantively encyclopedic interest. AUD is passed if publications
325:
is a full length review, at Caio! Magazine, which appears to be slick and professional outfit. So there's your two in-depth notable reliable sources, so it meets
1817:. It's shot all through human history and culture. It's important and subtle. There's more to encyclopedic exposition of food and food-related entities than
1323:
true of restaurants, and some of those park articles may very well be deletable as well if they're sourced as poorly as you claim and can't be improved.
1315:. Parks and restaurants are not necessarily equivalent topics that are subject to the same inclusion criteria — for example, parks can and often do have
125:
1737:
is designed to nix them all re establishing notability of coverage of restaurants in Winnipeg or Los Angeles or Washington County, Maine (home of the
658:
based in Winnipeg think a restaurant in Winnipeg is of interest to their readership for some reason — it is not passed just because a newspaper which
1064:
papers. It doesn't matter whether the local paper's distribution area is the size of Ukraine, Spain, Portage la Prairie or the moon — if there isn't
285:
as both the information and sources are essentially PR, nothing actually comes close to being genuine for trimming because it's all so unacceptable.
91:
86:
95:
1638:
restaurants don't merit articles. We agree that "restaurants whose existence is actually noteworthy for some genuinely encyclopedic reason" is a
1378:
last one on one of my articles: "Is this really an article about a single address on a street block? This should be flagged for deletion..." for
787:
be deemed notable just for existing. If this were Winnipeglocalpedia, I'd say keep. But it's not. If it were sourceable that there was anything
1939:
of Winnipeg were writing and publishing content about it, then that would count as a valid notability claim. But purely local sourcing which
1262:
distribution area. And the fact that restaurants aren't likely to garner a lot of coverage outside of their own local media is precisely the
1254:
And once again, you spectacularly miss my entire point. No, I am not "defining" all of Manitoba as a "locality" — the newspaper is published
78:
311:. Perfectly acceptable article for a restaurant. Being closed means absolutely nothing re notability as we are not a restaurant guide.
1031:
coverage alone; it passes AUD when newspapers in New York City or Washington or Chicago are starting to show that it's getting famous
17:
180:
995:
of the geographic area that the newspaper is distributed in is not relevant to AUD at all — what matters to AUD is the geographic
147:
359:
situation), should not have had much bearing on the question of the article's existence, but perhaps it will now be acceptable?
1813:
refs for it. I haven't done it because there's a paywall. I'll just leave you with the thought that there is such a thing as
445:-- no indications of notability even when the restaurant was open. The coverage is mostly local press which does not meet
1337:
But it's not just any average restaurant. It's a notable restaurant. There's a thousand-word article in regional media (
1312:
686:
1338:
312:
2041:
1935:
standalone BLP, then that would count as a valid notability claim. If it were recognized or famous enough that sources
40:
2018:
1349:
and that is why we have GNG, so we know what is "presumed notable" and don't have hash it out on a case-by-case basis.
141:
1923:
feasibly keep an article about everything that could ever claim to be the first or only exemplar of its class in one
1584:
article is not "people in the city the restaurant was located in might care", or "the local newspaper covered it" —
779:
notable than the norm in some genuinely substantive way to qualify for a Knowledge (XXG) article, because there are
572:, if we don't want to. But for this article to be deleted we need an argument along the lines of "Yes, easily meets
411:
is not a quality newspaper of standing. I am sure it is. My point was that the Google News search finds no coverage
2022:
1997:
1964:
1875:
1830:
1629:
1570:
1332:
1249:
1219:
1198:
1097:
978:
808:
728:
707:
675:
605:
458:
433:
368:
303:
277:
257:
240:
223:
206:
60:
1480:
different German or Thai restaurants. Our job is to describe reality as it is found not as we think it should be.
137:
1536:
so-called 'famous' general? All generals are interchangeable: they boss soldiers around. So? Delete." And so on.
859:. Although it's the fourth largest city in Manitoba, it's much smaller than Winnipeg. It has two weekly papers,
1835:
Yet again: an individual paper's overall circulation numbers, or the geographic range of its distribution, are
329:
right there and that's not including the briefer mentions at TripAdvisor and so forth. If you want to override
298:
82:
1643:
multiple major in-depth articles. Many other more gastronomically accomplished restaurants simply don't meet
420:
found the closure of the restaurant worth mentioning, at least it does not turn up on the Google News search.
1600:
somehow. We're not Restaurantpedia or foundlocally.com, and we can't confer an automatic notability pass on
187:
1874:
If local coverage were all it took to satisfy AUD, we would have to keep an article about every individual
1871:
satisfy AUD just because that newspaper is also distributed to Brandon and Portage la Prairie and Thompson.
2014:
1104:
273:
74:
66:
2037:
1826:
1566:
1245:
974:
724:
601:
589:
581:
454:
364:
321:, which is Winnipeg's main daily paper. That's more than many restaurants get, that have articles here.
253:
236:
219:
36:
494:-- a place larger than Spain or the Ukraine and with a population of 1.2 million -- and its oldest and
342:, you know. And while Google hits mean nothing, I got more than ten times the 150 claimed... is there
1279:
notable either — for a restaurant to warrant a Knowledge (XXG) article, it needs to be significantly
936:(which is not long) says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least
755:
passed just because a local publication happens to have some extralocal readership.) We could nearly
1035:
Boston. A chip stand in Williamsburg does not pass AUD just because it got one restaurant review in
828:
478:
317:
286:
173:
1266:: virtually every restaurant that has ever existed at all, anywhere on earth, could be sourced to
153:
1867:
counts toward AUD — but a newspaper published in Winnipeg covering a restaurant in Winnipeg does
1037:
856:
640:
498:
its highest-circulation daily newspaper. It is a "local paper" if and only if one considers the
1960:
1729:
1625:
1328:
1093:
804:
671:
269:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2036:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
580:
but should be deleted anyway because _______", and the blank has to contain something beyond
577:
516:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1822:
1818:
1723:
1562:
1241:
970:
965:
Anyway... I still can't see the article being deleted unless the closer wants to state "The
720:
597:
450:
429:
379:
360:
202:
2010:
1844:
1840:
1776:
1734:
1685:
1644:
1346:
984:
933:
872:
748:
615:
573:
569:
549:
520:
512:
504:
483:
446:
356:
330:
326:
634:
town or city that the restaurant is located does in not pass AUD just because that paper
350:
was founded in 1872. Can we please not characterize it as if it's some small-town weekly?
333:
you need better arguments than "nothing of substance" or "all so unacceptable" and so on.
1288:
primarily local interest, in classes of topic that are standard and routine features of
1379:
698:
620:
662:
based in Winnipeg, and is thus covering the topic in a purely local-interest context,
593:
1859:
published in Winnipeg is conferring coverage on a restaurant in Winnipeg, or if the
1342:
1176:
The culture of a great city and region has many aspects besides those which attract
322:
1956:
1814:
1775:
couple dozen volumes and go head-to-head with Britannica. We'll need to tighten up
1621:
1324:
1089:
800:
667:
646:
626:
54:
775:
were all it took. A standalone non-chain local restaurant has to be significantly
767:
existed in the world at all, if local coverage verifying inconsequential facts of
638:
happens to have some secondary readership beyond the city limits. Because so does
112:
1103:
locality then. Why not "Canada" as just a locality. Should we have an article on
596:
etc.) or flat-out false statements or whatever. Have not seen any to this point.
530:
388:
correct in this nomination" is completely uncalled for. Please assume good faith.
384:
With all due respect, I resent the tone in your comments. You sweeping "is there
1561:
Well we all don't like the same things. That's what makes a great encyclopedia.
585:
425:
198:
1863:
is conferring coverage on a restaurant in Calgary or Saskatoon or Boston, then
969:
is not regional media" and since that's not true I don't consider that likely.
1843:
for the purposes of getting a topic that's subject to AUD restrictions over
952:
See that? "regional media"! Not just an "indication of notability" but a "
449:. A place of local notability, and that's it. Not sufficient to meet GNG.
1733:(Sunday circulation 950,000) -- they are just "local papers" to you, and
614:
of an individual media outlet does not singlehandedly carry a topic over
491:
1992:
1027:
of Winnipeg. A restaurant in Boston does not pass AUD on the basis of
1727:
with a circulation of 5,000 (every two weeks) and I suppose also the
799:
renown, I'd say keep. But nothing here demonstrates or sources that.
1919:
make a poet or a musician eligible for a Knowledge (XXG) article.
1592:
cover local restaurants, so the existence of local coverage does
2030:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1107:? He's really only of local interest in one country out of 200+.
1076:
published in Winnipeg, then the restaurant has still failed AUD
1274:
coverage, thus meaning that any restaurant in existence could
666:
to also ship some copies to Brandon and Thompson and The Pas.
355:
I have now cleaned up the article, which (since this is not a
2009:
is a great paper but the coverage is from Winnipeg only. For
918:
and all other large metropolitan dailies) in with the weekly
689:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
743:
that would make it a topic of any substantive or permanent
1898:
topics where there are objective notability standards to
568:
to keep any article, even those that that obviously pass
1283:
notable than the norm, for some substantive reason that
1375:
533:
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention...
108:
104:
100:
1927:
city. If it were owned and operated by a chef who was
747:
interest, and cites no non-local coverage to pass the
172:
407:
Second, local newspaper: I have never suggested that
1304:
notable than the norm by virtue of gaining coverage
1955:enough to make a restaurant wikinotable by itself.
695:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
486:. This is not a matter of opinion but of fact. The
232:
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions
186:
1612:only a few hundred restaurants in the world that
1341:). There's a 500-word article in regional media (
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2044:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1890:claiming GNG just because local sourcing exists.
832:is a regional, not a local paper, and as I said
1620:smaller set than "all restaurants that exist".
1072:coverage of the restaurant coming from papers
215:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
1084:claim you can make about how widely read the
834:for a region larger than the Spain or Ukraine
717:list of Business-related deletion discussions
249:list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions
8:
2005:Boy, what a lot of sound and fury. Yes, the
1915:media coverage, those are distinctions that
999:that the coverage source has from the topic.
715:Note: This debate has been included in the
247:Note: This debate has been included in the
230:Note: This debate has been included in the
213:Note: This debate has been included in the
1041:, but if it starts getting coverage in the
783:of such things in the world and they can't
315:is a very long and in-depth article in the
1407:By your criteria, there is quite possibly
1002:Sure, there are absolutely contexts where
714:
246:
229:
212:
1851:vis-à-vis the location of the topic, and
1943:to demonstrate that the topic is of any
1292:locality in existence rather than being
1258:Winnipeg, and the rest of Manitoba is a
759:write an article like this about almost
396:with 1890 hits. You have to look at the
1951:Winnipeg for any substantive reason is
519:). This is not my opinion, but a fact.
1319:aspects to them, while that's at best
1311:Please also familiarize yourself with
1016:Portage la Prairie Herald Leader Press
932:Anyway, the reason it matters is that
1409:not one single restaurant in Winnipeg
490:is the broadsheet paper of record of
268:uh yeah, nothing of substance here -
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
482:is not "local coverage" as meant by
1471:eat at home more. It might be that
1222:? It's a simple yes or no question.
630:— but a newspaper published in the
1931:notable enough to have his or her
1882:CORPs and ORGs are subject to the
1014:coverage counts for more than the
24:
1596:demonstrate that a restaurant is
942:strong indication of notability.
920:Portage la Prairie Daily Graphic
751:test (which, as noted above, is
466:, just to point out a few facts:
1839:to whether the coverage passes
983:You're the one misinterpreting
1847:. What matters is the paper's
61:18:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
1:
2023:17:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
1998:22:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1965:18:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
1886:burden of having to meet AUD
1831:02:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
1630:23:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
1571:20:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
1333:16:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1250:16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
1098:07:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
1088:is or isn't beyond Winnipeg.
979:01:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
871:are local papers as meant by
809:00:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
729:23:58, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
708:18:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
676:23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
1270:greater or lesser amount of
897:Can you see the difference?
606:23:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
459:21:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
434:15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
369:01:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
304:05:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
278:10:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
258:09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
241:09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
224:09:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
207:19:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
2061:
1894:poetry contest — but they
1876:parent teacher association
1300:require evidence of being
1220:Category:Parks in Winnipeg
1199:Category:Parks in Winnipeg
956:indication of notability"!
1416:bias into our selection).
1218:Do you want to empty out
2033:Please do not modify it.
1296:in any substantive way,
987:here, not me — AUD does
906:If you want to lump the
650:, but that doesn't mean
32:Please do not modify it.
584:or "is defunct" (so is
1467:It might be that that
1105:William Henry Harrison
400:page of results, like
1855:else. If a newspaper
590:Penn Central Railroad
582:argument by assertion
888:is a regional paper.
826:As to the rest, the
763:restaurant that has
75:Gasthaus Gutenberger
67:Gasthaus Gutenberger
2007:Winnipeg Free Press
1907:-level awards that
1861:Winnipeg Free Press
1313:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1086:Winnipeg Free Press
1021:Winnipeg Free Press
1012:Winnipeg Free Press
967:Winnipeg Free Press
908:Winnipeg Free Press
886:Winnipeg Free Press
865:Herald Leader Press
829:Winnipeg Free Press
488:Winnipeg Free Press
479:Winnipeg Free Press
418:Winnipeg Free Press
409:Winnipeg Free Press
318:Winnipeg Free Press
1580:enough to have an
1049:counts toward AUD.
1038:The New York Times
857:Portage la Prairie
771:wider or enduring
641:The New York Times
511:The article meets
2015:Shawn in Montreal
1730:Los Angeles Times
1608:— there probably
1588:local newspapers
731:
710:
706:
610:The distribution
260:
243:
226:
2052:
2035:
1819:bangers and mash
1724:The Quoddy Tides
1604:restaurant that
1308:the local media.
705:
703:
696:
694:
692:
690:
564:Now, we are not
540:
383:
340:defunct entities
301:
296:
256:
239:
222:
191:
190:
176:
128:
116:
98:
57:
34:
2060:
2059:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2042:deletion review
2031:
1473:people ought to
1469:people ought to
938:regional, media
711:
699:
697:
685:
683:
377:
299:
287:
252:
235:
218:
133:
124:
89:
73:
70:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2058:
2056:
2047:
2046:
2026:
2025:
2000:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1920:
1891:
1888:over and above
1872:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1380:2 Rossi Street
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1309:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1050:
1000:
960:
959:
958:
957:
947:
946:
945:
944:
927:
926:
925:
924:
901:
900:
899:
898:
892:
891:
890:
889:
879:
878:
877:
876:
850:
849:
848:
847:
840:
839:
838:
837:
821:
820:
819:
818:
812:
811:
739:. This claims
733:
732:
693:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
621:Calgary Herald
561:
560:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
541:
525:
524:
509:
500:New York Times
474:
468:
467:
461:
439:
438:
437:
436:
421:
405:
404:with 155 hits.
389:
372:
371:
352:
351:
335:
334:
306:
280:
262:
261:
244:
227:
194:
193:
130:
69:
64:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2057:
2045:
2043:
2039:
2034:
2028:
2027:
2024:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2001:
1999:
1996:
1995:
1989:
1986:
1985:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1930:
1929:independently
1926:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1901:
1897:
1892:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1778:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1726:
1725:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1646:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1535:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1479:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1415:
1410:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1200:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1179:
1178:international
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1106:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
998:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
961:
955:
951:
950:
949:
948:
943:
939:
935:
931:
930:
929:
928:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
896:
895:
894:
893:
887:
883:
882:
881:
880:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:Daily Graphic
858:
854:
853:
852:
851:
844:
843:
842:
841:
835:
831:
830:
825:
824:
823:
822:
816:
815:
814:
813:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
713:
712:
709:
704:
702:
691:
688:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
643:
642:
637:
633:
629:
628:
623:
622:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
595:
594:Mongol Empire
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
557:
551:
547:
546:by definition
542:
539:
536:
534:
529:
528:
527:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
475:
472:
471:
470:
469:
465:
462:
460:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
440:
435:
431:
427:
422:
419:
414:
413:anywhere else
410:
406:
403:
399:
395:
390:
387:
381:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
319:
314:
310:
307:
305:
302:
297:
294:
290:
284:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
264:
263:
259:
255:
254:North America
250:
245:
242:
238:
237:North America
233:
228:
225:
221:
220:North America
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
127:
123:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2032:
2029:
2006:
2002:
1993:
1987:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1916:
1913:nationalized
1912:
1908:
1904:
1899:
1895:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1836:
1815:Culinary art
1779:quite a bit.
1739:Quoddy Tides
1738:
1728:
1722:
1681:
1639:
1635:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1582:encyclopedia
1581:
1577:
1533:
1477:
1472:
1468:
1413:
1408:
1320:
1316:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1284:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1177:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1046:
1043:Boston Globe
1042:
1036:
1032:
1029:Boston Globe
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1004:Boston Globe
1003:
996:
992:
988:
966:
953:
941:
937:
919:
916:Boston Globe
915:
911:
907:
885:
868:
864:
860:
833:
827:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
773:significance
772:
768:
764:
760:
756:
752:
745:encyclopedic
744:
740:
736:
700:
684:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:Toronto Star
645:
639:
635:
631:
627:Toronto Star
625:
619:
611:
565:
545:
538:
535:
531:
499:
496:far and away
495:
487:
477:
463:
442:
417:
412:
408:
397:
385:
347:
343:
339:
316:
308:
292:
288:
282:
270:David Gerard
265:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
121:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1823:Herostratus
1634:Well sure,
1563:Herostratus
1294:distinctive
1242:Herostratus
1056:have to be
971:Herostratus
789:distinctive
721:K.e.coffman
598:Herostratus
586:RJR Nabisco
451:K.e.coffman
380:Herostratus
361:Herostratus
160:free images
1925:particular
1837:irrelevant
1078:regardless
923:different.
701:Sandstein
348:Free Press
2038:talk page
1947:interest
1911:generate
1900:determine
1260:secondary
1070:non-local
1062:non-local
910:(and the
855:Contrast
548:it meets
37:talk page
2040:or in a
1905:national
1849:location
1682:provided
1614:actually
1506:mission.
1376:got that
1008:LA Times
997:distance
912:LA Times
863:and the
797:national
781:millions
687:Relisted
592:and the
566:required
492:Manitoba
386:anything
344:anything
119:View log
39:or in a
1957:Bearcat
1937:outside
1884:special
1853:nothing
1622:Bearcat
1598:special
1578:notable
1534:Another
1325:Bearcat
1181:things.
1159:But so?
1090:Bearcat
1025:outside
846:region!
801:Bearcat
741:nothing
668:Bearcat
664:happens
624:or the
578:WP:CORP
517:WP:CORP
508:policy.
166:WP refs
154:scholar
92:protect
87:history
56:MBisanz
2011:WP:AUD
2003:Delete
1988:Delete
1949:beyond
1845:WP:GNG
1841:WP:AUD
1777:WP:GNG
1735:WP:AUD
1686:WP:GNG
1645:WP:GNG
1640:vastly
1618:vastly
1606:exists
1590:always
1347:WP:GNG
1321:rarely
1317:unique
1306:beyond
1276:always
1058:coming
1033:beyond
985:WP:AUD
954:strong
934:WP:AUD
873:WP:AUD
793:unique
757:always
749:WP:AUD
737:Delete
616:WP:AUD
574:WP:GNG
570:WP:GNG
550:WP:GNG
523:states
521:WP:GNG
513:WP:GNG
505:WP:AUD
484:WP:AUD
464:Sheesh
447:WP:AUD
443:Delete
357:WP:TNT
331:WP:GNG
327:WP:GNG
295:wister
291:wister
283:Delete
266:Delete
138:Google
96:delete
50:delete
1945:wider
1941:fails
1602:every
1478:among
1290:every
1272:local
1264:point
1068:some
1060:from
1045:then
940:is a
869:Those
612:range
515:(and
181:JSTOR
142:books
126:Stats
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
2019:talk
1961:talk
1865:that
1827:talk
1636:most
1626:talk
1567:talk
1414:that
1343:here
1339:here
1329:talk
1302:more
1285:does
1281:more
1268:some
1246:talk
1094:talk
1066:also
1054:does
1047:that
993:size
975:talk
914:and
884:The
805:talk
777:more
765:ever
725:talk
672:talk
636:also
632:same
602:talk
588:and
576:and
559:far.
476:The
455:talk
430:talk
402:here
398:last
394:here
365:talk
323:Here
313:Here
309:Keep
300:talk
274:talk
203:talk
174:FENS
148:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
1953:not
1933:own
1896:are
1880:why
1869:not
1857:not
1610:are
1594:not
1586:all
1082:any
1080:of
1074:not
1010:or
1006:or
989:not
791:or
785:all
761:any
753:not
656:not
426:T*U
199:T*U
188:TWL
117:– (
52:.
2021:)
1994:MB
1963:)
1917:do
1909:do
1829:)
1821:.
1741:).
1628:)
1569:)
1331:)
1298:do
1256:in
1248:)
1096:)
977:)
867:.
807:)
769:no
727:)
719:.
674:)
660:is
604:)
457:)
432:)
424:--
367:)
276:)
251:.
234:.
217:.
205:)
168:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
2017:(
1959:(
1825:(
1688:.
1647:.
1624:(
1565:(
1532:"
1327:(
1244:(
1092:(
973:(
875:.
836:.
803:(
723:(
670:(
652:I
600:(
453:(
428:(
382::
378:@
363:(
293:T
289:S
272:(
201:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
122:·
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.