1709:- WP:ONEEVENT concerns reliable sources covering the person only in the context of a single event. Here, the event promoted reliable sources to write about their lives, not only their placement in the event, but outside the event - from birth though death in significant detail. WP:ONEEVENT does not apply and arguments asserting it does are focusing on the motivation behind reliable sources reason for writing what they wrote, which is not part of WP:ONEEVENT. While it may be true that none of the coverage would have occurred had they not died the way they did, we all agree that the coverage did occur and that is where Knowledge steps in to determine whether there is enough of such coverage for a stand alone article on the topic. Also, if the topics satify Knowledge's notability requirements, then
871:. Membership of the Council of Stellar Management and a prominent role in the Somethingawful forums are both well documented, and response of both communties to his death lends evidence to his notability. This is exactly the sort of article you'd expect to read on an encyclopedia, and the article has already been viewed 59,000 times. Additionally, the Doherty should be kept as well. The combination of being a Bronze Star recipient, authoring a book, and dying in the manner in which he did combines to confer notability. Deleting a well-sourced, valid, and widely reported article on the subject of a major event because of bureaucracy is stupid.
1661:
those things if they had not died? All sorts of people are killed in notable incidents, and it is then reported that they had done things in their lives and had respect in certain communities, real or web-based. In the absence of any of them becoming genuinely symbolic or iconic in some enduring way as a result of their deaths, I can't see they're notable in their own right. We're shading a bit to close to looking at this as some form of memorial opportunity - there's other places for that, not here.
97:" Some editors have interpreted this as pointing to deletion of all three articles, arguing that they have no notability outside the Consulate attack; some editors have interpreted it as pointing to keeping all three articles, as the press published general biographical details of the subjects following the attack. As the guideline doesn't give any specific guidance on which of these interpretations is to be preferred, I have treated both of these interpretations as valid.
791:– Yes, they were killed a few weeks ago in that consulate attack, but nothing here makes these individuals notable, let alone stand out with regards to the attacks. Nothing else can be mentioned aside from their cursory personal and professional backgrounds. As Buckshot06 mentioned above, being a Navy SEAL does not confer notability, and the Bronze Star medal is a commonplace medal, especially in the field. Moreover, being a gaming mod doesn't to that, either. --
1249:, he was just a panicked horseman who deserved no special attention but he became famous and noteworthy because of the subsequent attention that was focused on him. There are many cases like that in military history where specific individuals are elevated above the rest. The world does that and in this case the media is ensuring that this continues with these four killed men, and no one can suppress and push aside the constant flow of
157:
619:. Methinks you are arbitrarily raising the bar and it sets a bad precedent. Every minor cartoon character gets a mention on WP with no sweat, and these are more significant and notable especially given the fact it's part of a current serious conflict in Libya. Another point is that these guys were the first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi.
889:, for instance? No, they're not. Should every one of the latter have articles? Clearly, no they shouldn't. So why should these three? They died, that's all. The event in which they died is notable, but they're no more notable individually than anybody else who's died. Redirects to the main article are fine, but not articles on all three individual victims. --
1179:? Being former Navy SEALs perhaps? Are all Navy SEALs worthy of articles? Are all members of special forces worldwide worthy of articles? Or is it just American special forces? Or is it just Navy SEALs because they're somehow "special"? At the end of the day these were just people doing their jobs who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. --
634:(i.e. that being a special forces operative, winning the Bronze Star or authoring a non-notable book does not make one notable). The "first known American casualties in the conflict to overthrow Gadafi"? Come again? Are you not aware that Gadaffi has already been overthrown? This had nothing whatsoever to do with the overthrow of Gadaffi. --
841:: per ONEEVENT. Mr. Vesey assertions aside, no part of Knowledge notability criteria allows for the compilation of non-notable facts to somehow froth up a notable whole. Being a Navy SEAL is not notable. Writing a book is not notable. Tens of thousands of soldiers have won Bronze Stars; also not notable. 0+0+0=0.
1145:. Each of these killed individuals were personalities in their own right, that worked undercover, but have now been thrust into the intense scrutiny of the media and online discussions, particularly since the circumstances surrounding their deaths are a source of debate and controversy. See also the template
1660:
Per comments above, I don't see that they have any genuine notability distinct from this one event. Yes there's a lot of coverage but that's because of the attack and their deaths; yes, one of them co-wrote a book and one of them was a known online gamer, but would we have pages on them in respect of
1490:
Well, his death received a great deal of attention (and was mourned) in the virtual world, as opposed to the real world, which I think is unusual. If a normal guy who played computer games were to die in real life, he wouldn't get the same kind of reaction from online communities that Sean Smith did.
1244:
about them. This is not the case when anonymous fighting men die or when tens of thousands of soldiers die, no one knows their names, but in this case, their names are not only known but are being elevated to a higher level of attention with each passing day as the attack is investigated. In the case
907:
that hasn't come close to wide currency? Not what I'd call a valid ground to keep. As far as the stupidity of deleting articles goes, if you would like to attempt to swing consensus to overturn ONEEVENT, the proper place to do so is on ONEEVENT's talk page. This is not "bureaucracy," but adherence
866:
does not apply, specifically "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.". Multiple sources are given that refer to him outside the context of a single event, and give reference to his prominence in the online community. Additionally, he doesn't meet the definition of
1291:
is something that is very unique and now well documented with secondary sources. This kind of massive virtual mourning doesn't happen with any normal serviceman who gets killed. It isn't the fact that he got killed in a conflict that makes him notable, but it's this unprecedented virtual reaction by
1155:
that lays out the importance of all the parts in understanding the "whole" of this complex picture, including all four
Americans killed in the attack and the roles they played while in Libya. These were not "doormen" -- they were extraordinarily skilled and highly experienced fighting professionals.
129:
I interpret these numbers to mean that there is a rough consensus that
Doherty and Woods aren't notable, but that they shouldn't be deleted outright. Hence merge. In Smith's case, enough editors thought his prominence online before the attack was enough to keep the article that the numbers are a lot
1717:
argument. As for the topics having to meet some threshold of importance or significance, that was decided by the editors of the reliable sources in favor of the topics being important when the editors chose to publish the information on the topics in their reliable source. While being a Navy SEAL,
494:
and these individuals are notable for nothing else than for being killed. They didn't hold senior positions and are intrinsically no more notable than anyone else who's died. Yes, they've received a lot of coverage, but that's normal these days for anyone killed in a notable event and doesn't mean
1286:
Can you give some names of these other servicemen killed, so we can compare the amount of coverage on them? I don't think that just one of the many servicemen who died in normal combat would be as notable (and have as many sources) as this attack, which is getting a great deal of media attention.
1271:
That's simply not true. Do a Google search on any
British or American serviceman killed in Iraq or Afghanistan and you will find reams of stuff on each and every one of them. That's what happens in the modern information age. It doesn't make them notable and it doesn't make these men notable. --
723:
per nom. No branch of the armed forces, whether special forces, catering corps, or vehicle-maintenance technicians, are more notable than any others, according to our guidelines. Bronze Stars are not notable; we routinely delete holders of the Silver Star because only MoH winners are intrinsicly
633:
What absolute drivel. Where have I said that "only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP"? I have myself written many, many biographical articles on people below that level. I haven't raised any bar - I'm just stating what
Knowledge has already established about notability
595:
Being a Navy Seal (or a member of any other special forces unit) is not sufficient for notability. Even sole-authoring a book is not sufficient for notability unless that book is exceptionally well-known. Receiving a Bronze Star (or its equivalent in any other country) is not sufficient for
1718:
writing a book, or earning a Bronze Star may not make the people stand out, the reliable sources writing about their lives show how important and significant these topics are despite the lack of position of or status reached by the people behind these biographical topics. The topics meet
1170:
And soldiers killed in combat aren't? Either you're saying we should have an article on every one of them, which is clearly impossible and undesirable, or you're saying these people are a special case. Why? What makes them a special case? What makes them notable
100:
There were other arguments put forward to keep the articles based on the subjects' achievements, such as
Doherty's book and Woods's Bronze Star. However, editors generally did not that that these contributed to the subjects' notability under our guidelines.
614:
and that WP is not an enclave for "who's who" for the so-called elite of humanity but that sudden, dramatic and critical events can and do and will bring to the public eye personalities who meet all of WP's heretofore standards of
884:
Nobody has suggested we should delete the article on the event! Simply that we should delete articles on individual victims. Are the men who died in this event any more significant than the many thousands who died in the
84:
Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy
Knowledge's notability requirements. Knowledge is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements.
362:
1239:
for the simple reason that the media is focusing on them strongly, the four dead
Americans, killed in a big attack, and their names as individuals is constantly focused on by the media, as each day brings more
104:
With the exception of one "keep all" !vote, all the arguments were at least partially based on the notability guidelines. Because of the high percentage of valid arguments, and the room for interpretation in
1013:. Sources have covered more than just his death, but it's pretty clear that none of the coverage would have occurred had he not died. I don't mean to sound cold, I just mean it's not like there was a
1193:
If a small number of people are killed in a shocking event they can get individual attention that casualties in an ongoing conflict that kills thousands cannot receive. Consider
315:
768:
552:
164:
495:
they're notable themselves. Smith being well-known on online games doesn't really cut it. He's just a bloke who played a lot of computer games. That's not exactly unusual. --
1197:, the first American woman killed in the Vietnam War (in a terrorist attack). Certainly the attention that Sean Smith has received from gamers has made him a sort of symbol.
1521:
What kind of reaction exactly has he gotten "from the online world" though? Can you provide links/sources regarding this? Explain a little beyond "reaction" or "attention"?
95:
When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both.
1057:
670:
356:
532:
512:
1037:
658:
1543:
1149:
868:
415:
410:
419:
93:
is the most important, and indeed I thought its interpretation by the participants was the key to judging consensus. Its wording is fairly vague: "
86:" This doesn't seem to be of all that much relevance here, as the debate has centred around whether the subjects pass our notability guidelines.
1547:
1214:
was also the first female CIA employee (and the youngest) to be killed in action. The two individuals in question do not have such distinctions.
1491:
The fact that the players (and even the game developers) made such a big deal about his death should make it a case that's worth noting. As for
1017:
article lined up for him on that day otherwise, for example. Perhaps he deserves a mention in the event article or something, but not his own.
402:
322:
1541:
109:, I looked more closely at the numbers involved to find the most appropriate close. From my analysis of the !votes, I get the following:
1373:
461:
456:
596:
notability. The fact he did all three makes him no more notable. This has all been held to be the case many times in previous AfDs. --
465:
1612:
1557:
1507:
1456:
1387:
1300:
1081:
173:
59:
1713:
indicate that the topic satisfies WP:NOTMEMORIAL. As for whether these three are more significant than other who died, that is a
989:
610:
Necro, so according to your standards only generals and admirals and any royalty deserve articles on WP. You seem to forget that
448:
288:
283:
203:
688:
292:
17:
1545:
377:
275:
344:
1109:
189:
676:
664:
1677:
1413:
908:
to our well-founded and consensus-approved notability criteria, however much you believe the subject is important.
406:
162:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1750:
1639:
the other two. Smith appears to have been a 'name' in the gaming world, even before this incident, so he passes
829:
40:
1433:
1287:
Sean Smith was not just a normal person killed; he had a great deal of influence online. And consider that the
1219:
931:
706:
338:
1104:. Therefore, the content can be summarized, and a redirect to an appropriate section in the target article.--
1368:
1623:
1527:
1480:
1394:
1105:
1023:
235:
334:
1746:
1731:
1710:
1701:
1684:
1652:
1627:
1603:
1566:
1559:
1532:
1516:
1509:
1485:
1465:
1458:
1445:
1437:
1420:
1407:
1397:
1378:
1363:
1350:
1338:
1330:
1309:
1302:
1281:
1265:
1223:
1206:
1188:
1165:
1113:
1101:
1069:
1049:
1028:
1010:
993:
965:
949:
937:
918:
898:
879:
859:
851:
833:
812:
795:
780:
776:
759:
735:
712:
643:
628:
605:
590:
564:
544:
524:
504:
491:
398:
140:
133:
66:
36:
1727:
1277:
1184:
979:
909:
894:
842:
825:
752:
732:
639:
616:
601:
583:
560:
540:
520:
500:
452:
219:
193:
1538:
1288:
384:
1429:
1215:
961:
927:
923:
886:
808:
702:
575:
Doherty and Woods were both Navy Seals. Doherty coauthored a book. Woods received a bronze star.
370:
178:
1697:
1596:
1202:
1006:
953:
863:
821:
792:
611:
225:
156:
106:
90:
79:
75:
71:
1648:
1619:
1522:
1475:
1448:
due to the unique reaction from online communities concerning his death. I agree with Falcon.
1391:
1138:
1093:
1065:
1045:
1018:
279:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1745:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
903:
Err ... that he doesn't meet the definition of a "low profile individual" as set forth in an
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1550:
1500:
1449:
1346:
1326:
1293:
1089:
772:
725:
1723:
1616:
1273:
1211:
1194:
1180:
1097:
974:
890:
873:
745:
729:
682:
635:
597:
576:
556:
536:
516:
496:
444:
350:
55:
1499:
in that sense as there are a great deal of reliable secondary sources that document him.
1671:
1261:
1161:
957:
804:
624:
1719:
1714:
1693:
1640:
1589:
1583:
1492:
1471:
1359:
1198:
1142:
1085:
724:
deemed notable. Doherty's worthiness in terms of writing a book does not really pass
130:
more even. Hence I am closing Smith's article as no consensus, defaulting to keep. —
1644:
1253:
1241:
1130:
1061:
1041:
271:
253:
241:
209:
146:
70:. The two guidelines which have been most cited in relation to this discussion are
51:
482:
436:
309:
188:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1342:
1322:
1250:
1246:
1236:
1134:
1664:
1540:. And here is some of the specific coverage on Sean Smith and that tribute:
1537:
Here is the primary source "tribute" to Sean Smith, on the Eve Online site:
1257:
1157:
620:
1470:
What unique reaction exactly, and how does that help this article meet the
744:
None are notable aspects on their own, but its the combination of factors.
1125:
lost. These articles are all well-researched and to the point and meet
1739:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1321:
per RightCowLeftCoast; I can't put it any better than they did.
1121:
because there is incredible interest in this episode and in the
151:
182:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
695:
478:
474:
470:
432:
428:
424:
305:
301:
297:
369:
803:- per nom, no notability outside of their deaths.
769:list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions
553:list of United States-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1753:). No further edits should be made to this page.
659:list of video game-related deletion discussions
1058:list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions
89:Of the notability guidelines that apply here,
867:a low profile individual as it is defined at
533:list of Military-related deletion discussions
383:
202:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
172:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
1056:Note: This debate has been included in the
1036:Note: This debate has been included in the
767:Note: This debate has been included in the
657:Note: This debate has been included in the
551:Note: This debate has been included in the
531:Note: This debate has been included in the
511:Note: This debate has been included in the
513:list of People-related deletion discussions
1341:, I agree with Falcon8765 in this case. --
1175:as opposed to simple victims of a notable
1055:
1038:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
1035:
766:
550:
530:
510:
176:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
1390:. No evidence of independent notability.
869:Knowledge:Who_is_a_low_profile_individual
1586:and is well referenced and organized. --
687:
196:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1092:, the subjects also fail all but #5 in
7:
693:
24:
1613:U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi
1388:U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi
1082:U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi
60:U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi
1150:2012 diplomatic missions attacks
155:
956:does not apply in his case. --
681:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1582:- per Falcon and Izak. Meets
1379:22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1351:11:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1331:11:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1166:07:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1114:06:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1070:00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1050:00:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
1029:22:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
994:10:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
966:08:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
919:19:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
899:14:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
880:06:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
852:00:47, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
834:00:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
813:23:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
796:23:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
781:23:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
760:21:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
736:21:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
713:20:35, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
629:07:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
606:14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
591:20:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
565:20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
545:20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
525:20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
505:19:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
1:
1289:virtual reaction to his death
1084:. Although the subjects meet
675:
192:on the part of others and to
116:Keep Smith, but not others: 4
1658:Delete/merge to main article
1292:an online gaming community.
1235:The point is that these are
669:
141:12:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
122:Delete/merge/redirect all: 2
1732:09:48, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
1702:13:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
1685:10:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
1653:19:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1628:09:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1604:04:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1567:02:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1533:02:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1517:00:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1486:22:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
1466:23:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
1438:20:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
1421:11:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
1398:07:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
1310:22:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1282:12:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1266:09:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
1224:05:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
1207:14:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
1189:21:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
952:, as per Falcon8765 above:
938:21:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
663:
644:13:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
492:Knowledge is not a memorial
1770:
1386:to a 'Victims' section on
1742:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1692:per RightCowLeftCoast.
234:; accounts blocked for
204:single-purpose accounts
174:policies and guidelines
1096:, and also fall under
1446:Sean Smith (diplomat)
1339:Sean Smith (diplomat)
950:Sean Smith (diplomat)
860:Sean Smith (diplomat)
399:Sean Smith (diplomat)
119:Merge/redirect all: 5
67:Sean Smith (diplomat)
1078:Merge & Redirect
1495:, he is definitely
887:Battle of the Somme
186:by counting votes.
165:not a majority vote
1690:Merge and Redirect
1428:per Sergecross73.
1384:Merge and redirect
1319:Merge and Redirect
1683:
1602:
1106:RightCowLeftCoast
1072:
1052:
991:
783:
715:
567:
547:
527:
393:Also nominating:
267:
266:
263:
190:assume good faith
1761:
1744:
1680:
1674:
1667:
1662:
1599:
1593:
1587:
1564:
1555:
1530:
1525:
1514:
1505:
1483:
1478:
1463:
1454:
1419:
1409:7&6=thirteen
1376:
1371:
1366:
1307:
1298:
1154:
1148:
1129:the criteria of
1026:
1021:
990:
987:
986:
983:
977:
934:
915:
905:unofficial essay
876:
848:
709:
700:
699:
698:
691:
685:
679:
673:
667:
656:
486:
468:
440:
422:
388:
387:
373:
325:
313:
295:
261:
249:
233:
217:
198:
168:, but instead a
159:
152:
136:
135:Mr. Stradivarius
65:no consensus on
48:The result was
34:
1769:
1768:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1751:deletion review
1740:
1722:. Keep all. --
1678:
1672:
1665:
1597:
1591:
1560:
1551:
1528:
1523:
1510:
1501:
1481:
1476:
1459:
1450:
1406:
1374:
1369:
1364:
1303:
1294:
1212:Barbara Robbins
1195:Barbara Robbins
1152:
1146:
1024:
1019:
984:
981:
980:
975:
936:
932:
911:
874:
844:
826:Hirolovesswords
711:
707:
694:
662:
459:
445:Tyrone S. Woods
443:
413:
397:
330:
321:
286:
270:
251:
239:
223:
207:
194:sign your posts
150:
134:
56:Tyrone S. Woods
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1767:
1765:
1756:
1755:
1735:
1734:
1711:WP:NOTMEMORIAL
1704:
1687:
1655:
1637:not sure about
1630:
1606:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1440:
1430:A wild Rattata
1423:
1400:
1381:
1353:
1333:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1216:A wild Rattata
1116:
1102:WP:NOTMEMORIAL
1074:
1073:
1053:
1032:
1031:
1011:WP:NOTMEMORIAL
1003:Merge/Redirect
996:
968:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
930:
928:The Bushranger
901:
854:
836:
815:
798:
785:
784:
764:
763:
762:
739:
738:
717:
716:
705:
703:The Bushranger
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
569:
568:
548:
528:
488:
487:
441:
391:
390:
327:
265:
264:
160:
149:
144:
127:
126:
123:
120:
117:
114:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1766:
1754:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1737:
1736:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1675:
1669:
1668:
1659:
1656:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1631:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1607:
1605:
1601:
1600:
1595:
1594:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1568:
1565:
1563:
1558:
1556:
1554:
1548:
1546:
1544:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1531:
1526:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1515:
1513:
1508:
1506:
1504:
1498:
1494:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1484:
1479:
1473:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1457:
1455:
1453:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1417:
1416:
1411:
1410:
1405:per Falcon.
1404:
1401:
1399:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1382:
1380:
1377:
1372:
1367:
1361:
1357:
1354:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1317:
1316:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1301:
1299:
1297:
1290:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1243:
1238:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1151:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1117:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1022:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
997:
995:
992:
988:
978:
972:
969:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
948:
945:
939:
935:
933:One ping only
929:
925:
922:
921:
920:
917:
916:
914:
906:
902:
900:
896:
892:
888:
883:
882:
881:
878:
877:
870:
865:
861:
858:
855:
853:
850:
849:
847:
840:
837:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
816:
814:
810:
806:
802:
799:
797:
794:
790:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
765:
761:
758:
757:
756:
751:
750:
749:
743:
742:
741:
740:
737:
734:
731:
727:
722:
719:
718:
714:
710:
708:One ping only
704:
697:
690:
684:
678:
672:
666:
660:
655:
654:
645:
641:
637:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:WP:NOTABILITY
613:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
594:
593:
592:
589:
588:
587:
582:
581:
580:
574:
571:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
549:
546:
542:
538:
534:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
509:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
493:
484:
480:
476:
472:
467:
463:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
421:
417:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
395:
394:
386:
382:
379:
376:
372:
368:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
349:
346:
343:
340:
336:
333:
332:Find sources:
328:
324:
320:
317:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
290:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
268:
259:
255:
247:
243:
237:
231:
227:
221:
215:
211:
205:
201:
197:
195:
191:
185:
181:
180:
175:
171:
167:
166:
161:
158:
154:
153:
148:
145:
143:
142:
139:
138:
137:
125:Delete all: 6
124:
121:
118:
115:
112:
111:
110:
108:
102:
98:
96:
92:
87:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
62:
61:
57:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1741:
1738:
1706:
1689:
1670:
1663:
1657:
1636:
1635:Sean Smith;
1632:
1620:Andy Dingley
1608:
1590:
1588:
1579:
1561:
1552:
1524:Sergecross73
1511:
1502:
1496:
1477:Sergecross73
1460:
1451:
1442:
1425:
1414:
1408:
1402:
1383:
1355:
1335:
1318:
1304:
1295:
1234:
1176:
1172:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1077:
1020:Sergecross73
1014:
1002:
998:
973:per Falcon.
970:
946:
924:WP:ONLYESSAY
912:
910:
904:
872:
856:
845:
843:
838:
817:
800:
788:
754:
753:
747:
746:
720:
585:
584:
578:
577:
572:
489:
392:
380:
374:
366:
359:
353:
347:
341:
331:
318:
272:Glen Doherty
257:
245:
236:sockpuppetry
229:
218:; suspected
213:
199:
187:
183:
177:
169:
163:
147:Glen Doherty
132:
131:
128:
103:
99:
94:
88:
83:
64:
52:Glen Doherty
49:
47:
31:
28:
1247:Paul Revere
1007:WP:ONEEVENT
954:WP:ONEEVENT
913:Ravenswing
864:WP:ONEEVENT
846:Ravenswing
822:WP:ONEEVENT
773:Altairisfar
612:WP:NOTPAPER
357:free images
113:Keep all: 8
107:WP:ONEEVENT
91:WP:ONEEVENT
80:WP:MEMORIAL
76:WP:ONEEVENT
72:WP:MEMORIAL
1724:Uzma Gamal
1274:Necrothesp
1181:Necrothesp
1139:WP:NOTABLE
1094:WP:SOLDIER
891:Necrothesp
875:Falcon8765
839:Delete all
730:Buckshot06
636:Necrothesp
598:Necrothesp
557:Necrothesp
537:Necrothesp
517:Necrothesp
497:Necrothesp
170:discussion
1747:talk page
1474:exactly?
1090:WP:ANYBIO
1062:• Gene93k
1042:• Gene93k
1015:USA Today
958:The Anome
805:EricSerge
726:WP:AUTHOR
490:Sad, but
226:canvassed
220:canvassed
179:consensus
37:talk page
1749:or in a
1707:Keep All
1694:Bennylin
1617:WP:BLP1E
1199:GabrielF
1119:Keep All
1098:WP:BLP1E
793:MuZemike
316:View log
258:username
252:{{subst:
246:username
240:{{subst:
230:username
224:{{subst:
214:username
208:{{subst:
39:or in a
1645:Bearian
1497:notable
1395:Snowman
462:protect
457:history
416:protect
411:history
363:WP refs
351:scholar
289:protect
284:history
222:users:
1720:WP:GNG
1715:WP:WAX
1641:WP:GNG
1592:Jethro
1584:WP:GNG
1553:Merlin
1529:msg me
1503:Merlin
1493:WP:GNG
1482:msg me
1472:WP:GNG
1452:Merlin
1426:Delete
1370:unique
1360:WP:GNG
1343:Shadak
1323:Nick-D
1296:Merlin
1173:people
1143:WP:BIO
1100:&
1088:&
1086:WP:GNG
1025:msg me
1005:- Per
999:Delete
985:Jester
820:- per
818:Delete
801:Delete
789:Delete
733:(talk)
721:Delete
466:delete
420:delete
335:Google
293:delete
82:says "
50:merge
1679:edits
1609:merge
1392:Giant
1375:names
1362:. --
1254:WP:RS
1242:WP:RS
1177:event
1131:WP:RS
1123:lives
771:. --
755:Vesey
586:Vesey
555:. --
535:. --
515:. --
483:views
475:watch
471:links
437:views
429:watch
425:links
378:JSTOR
339:books
323:Stats
310:views
302:watch
298:links
200:Note:
16:<
1728:talk
1698:talk
1673:talk
1666:N-HH
1649:talk
1633:Keep
1624:talk
1615:per
1580:Keep
1562:orca
1512:orca
1461:orca
1443:Keep
1434:talk
1403:Keep
1358:per
1356:Keep
1347:talk
1336:Keep
1327:talk
1305:orca
1278:talk
1262:talk
1258:IZAK
1251:WP:V
1237:WP:N
1220:talk
1203:talk
1185:talk
1162:talk
1158:IZAK
1135:WP:V
1110:talk
1066:talk
1046:talk
1009:and
982:SWAT
971:Keep
962:talk
947:Keep
926:. -
895:talk
857:Keep
830:talk
824:. --
809:talk
777:talk
748:Ryan
696:Talk
640:talk
625:talk
621:IZAK
602:talk
579:Ryan
573:Keep
561:talk
541:talk
521:talk
501:talk
479:logs
453:talk
449:edit
433:logs
407:talk
403:edit
371:FENS
345:news
306:logs
280:talk
276:edit
74:and
54:and
1611:to
1245:of
1127:all
1080:to
1001:or
661:. (
385:TWL
314:– (
254:csp
250:or
242:csm
210:spa
184:not
58:to
1730:)
1700:)
1651:)
1643:.
1626:)
1549:.
1436:)
1365:No
1349:)
1329:)
1280:)
1264:)
1256:.
1222:)
1205:)
1187:)
1164:)
1153:}}
1147:{{
1141:,
1137:,
1133:,
1112:)
1068:)
1060:.
1048:)
1040:.
964:)
897:)
862:.
832:)
811:)
779:)
728:.
701:)
689:RS
642:)
627:)
604:)
563:)
543:)
523:)
503:)
481:|
477:|
473:|
469:|
464:|
460:|
455:|
451:|
435:|
431:|
427:|
423:|
418:|
414:|
409:|
405:|
365:)
308:|
304:|
300:|
296:|
291:|
287:|
282:|
278:|
260:}}
248:}}
238::
232:}}
216:}}
206::
78:.
63:;
1726:(
1696:(
1676:/
1647:(
1622:(
1598:B
1432:(
1418:)
1415:☎
1412:(
1345:(
1325:(
1276:(
1260:(
1218:(
1201:(
1183:(
1160:(
1108:(
1064:(
1044:(
976:⇒
960:(
893:(
828:(
807:(
775:(
692:·
686:·
683:S
680:·
677:B
674:·
671:N
668:·
665:G
638:(
623:(
600:(
559:(
539:(
519:(
499:(
485:)
447:(
439:)
401:(
389:)
381:·
375:·
367:·
360:·
354:·
348:·
342:·
337:(
329:(
326:)
319:·
312:)
274:(
262:.
256:|
244:|
228:|
212:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
