568:- the reason for renomination is based on recent AfDs for similar articles that seem to indicate that the community's values for this kind of article have changed. I felt, given concerns (raised by someone on my talk page) that this is not-notable and a single-event internet meme, it doesn't really meet our inclusion guidelines. In short, I disregarded the previous AfDs because I felt that consensus on this topic might have changed. I think the discussion should stick to the article and its notability, not on the procedural point of whether it was ok to nominate it again 9-10 months after the last AfD. Best wishes
1671:, it has to be remembered that if it happened today or yesterday, it was news.... but if it happened 4 or 5 or 20 or 50 years ago, it has become history and can be treated properly in retrospect. Point here being is that wikipedia depends quite heavily on "news" as sources for its articles. Nearly everything within these pages was "news" at one time or another. The goal here is to give balanced coverage of a subject and source back to reliable sources... and that has been done. And to thos faling back on
1869:. And you guys are actually serious too which makes it all the more hilarious. Apparently some of you believe that inserting the word "incident" into the lede makes this article less about the girl and more about the shit but others of us (including the article title I might add) don't concur. None of you have felt it necessary to explain how this article is somehow immune to the defamation problems that
31:
1199:, from description of the incident to her quitting the university, to the fact that there was media reaction to the effect of the vigilatism. There is nothing here to merge because it is all already in the body of the more appropriate article. The sources in internet vigilatism might be different, but the content is essentially the same
1658:
of this odorferous article. The article is about an event and its many repercussions, and uses as article name, the "name" given the event in sources. The article is about the event and its repercussions, not about the woman. The woman discussed became herself a public figure when she personally made
830:
represents. But it's still an excellent illustrative example. All we really know about
Attucks is that he caught a bullet. Attucks' notability comes entirely from later discussion of that one brief event. Look at the words in the quote you use..."frequently named"..."commonly remembered"..."he is
1343:
This article is not about the person, it does not even name her or give any information about the person other than information relevant to the event itself, the article is about the event that took place and the consequences of such event (this is explicitly stated in the introduction). Since this
926:
How would the literal translation be the word "shit"? The word I assume is Korean or something for feces. The word "shit" carries with it a large number of different meanings including: feces, stuff, garbage, good stuff, something amazing, etc. -- so it's different than a generic word for feces.
723:
I'm unfamiliar with the details about Boxxy, but the deletion of the cat incident was a clear BLP violation because it focused on the negative actions of a minor. Nearly all the sources mentioned his name and he was the target of 4chan and others who have sworn to hunt the kid down and avenge the
1122:
with the pattern of things that should not be on wikipedia according to our own policies and guidelines. (FWIW, reference 9 starts to comes near to historic notability - at least someone has reflected on the incident. Were there more coverage in the article of the reaction or even interest after
1543:
is irrelevant. Notability policy also states 'notability is not temporary' and 'there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic', as this was considered notable at the time and in 3 subsequent afds, it cannot simply become non-notabile because more time has passed.
1736:
It's actually quite bad taste to even suggest the two are in the same league. BLP exists to mitigate the risk of defamation which is still clearly present here, per above. There has been no secondary analysis whatsoever and no precedent set - it's obviously ephemeral.
88:
article, however, it works fine. I haven't deleted the history, so anything else that people would like to move over to the other article is there, but I'd suggest that people don't try to recreate this article in the other one. A certain level of detail is fine.
1339:(which multiple people are claiming as a reason to delete this article) it states that a biographical article should not be created for a person who is notable for a single event. Rather, it states that you should "cover the event, not the person".
381:
BLP. We need to write articles about people (what this ostensibly is) with respect to their privacy. Even if no-one else did. As it stands, this person is notable for only one event. It's simply a BLP with frilly little bit reaction pieces.
292:. The references for that article were all blogs, which don't qualify. If this article had the same problems I'd be advocating its deletion as well, however this article has such sources as The Washington Post and New York Times. --
486:
article is especially convincing. This person isn't really notable for a single event, they are notable for the reaction and international discussion that event generated. Is it really fair this is up for deletion for a 4th time?
1237:
Yep. In my view the substance is the same, even if this current article is more verbose in saying it. I gain no additional information from the article than I do from the subsection. I am aware that this is subjective, however.
1037:
Well, the featured girl considered committing suicide many times, and the one-time incident that occurred in South Korea about 3 and half years ago is notable enough to keep as an "article page"? Knowledge (XXG) is not
539:
I think you have misunderstood me, I'm not saying that I am going to keep renominating it, its just that I feel that its likely to be renominated multiple times. This certainly won't be the last AfD for this article.
220:
217:
127:
122:
117:
1951:
Further non-news sources. The incident is mentioned in several books and a paper, one published 2 years after the event suggesting lasting significance and putting this incident beyond a mere news event.
777:
The guidelines about avoiding people famous for a single event are very important and useful but we have to consider the amount of discussion that event generates in academic/intellectual circles.
1808:, that article is not about John Lennon and not about Mark Chapman, but about events they were both involved in. It would be ridiculous and incorrect to judge the notability of that article using
1607:
is to avoid defamation and whether explicitly named or not the individual is readily identifiable from the information presented. As such I'd say all the votes citing BLP* are absolutely valid.
1216:- No it isn't. The Internet vigilantism article summarizes information found in this article. To say that "all of it" is in the body of the article is misleading. Have you compared them? --
1109:
establishes that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability."
1694:
It's kind of a weak argument to compare this article to Mark David
Chapman. The latter killed one of the United Kingdom's most famous musicians. The former... let her dog shit on a floor.
504:
I can see no guideline that limits the amount of times an article can be nominated. I suspect the list of AfD's for this article may keep growing until it eventually gets deleted.
1279:. Does not fulfill "historic notability" requirement and all relevant information is already contained within Internet vigilantism, making this article redundant and unnecessary.
523:
regardless of article merit, that would an inappropriate use of AfD. After only 4 nominations, given a 20% variation in results, there's over a 50% chance of deleting anything.
317:
When you get into newspaper blogs, they move away from the traditional meaning of "blog" and towards an editorial piece. I specifically remembering it appearing in print media.
414:
I voted to keep this way back in 2006, but it doesn't fit our community standards currently in light of BLP. Perhaps some aspects could be merged into other articles though.
1663:
is a violation. And it does demonstrate hitorical notability as shown by its multiple sources... heck, I love that the failed 2005 deletion effort itself even made the news:
1603:
etc. my understanding of the
English language is that the subject of the article is actually the girl ("dog poop" is an identifier/adjective) and her action. The purpose of
188:
1996:
1957:
1659:
a public apology. So covering her (in)actions, the public's outcry, the subsequent results, and her public aplogy is not a BLP violation... no more than an article about
1020:
No valid reason for deletion given in the nomination. Event is obviously notable with sourced coverage clear in the article. Suggest reading deletion policy in future. --
966:
says "'dog poop girl,' also known as the 'puppy poo girl,'". It seems we should follow the lead of these major
English language newspapers. BTW, did anyone notice that
214:
112:
907:
It seems pretty focused on that to me. Aside from the explaination of the incident which is necessary, the rest is about the reaction on the internet and media. --
360:
1955:
1873:
exists to avoid given its victim is readily identifiable (including from the references) and until you do, so far as I'm concerned this falls squarely under the
40:
1953:
1493:
831:
regarded"...and the rest of the article is the same. He was at the wrong place at the the right time; the subsequent discussion made him notable. --
806:
He has been frequently named as the first martyr of the
American Revolution and is the only Boston Massacre victim whose name is commonly remembered.
1635:. So if you defame the "government executive who makes his home at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue," it is still reasonably identifiable as the president.
1372:
information is preserved without expanding that article too far), but there hasn't been a single viable justification for a deletion given yet. --
658:
267:
1116:
This article does not demonstrate any historic notability. It is merely news based on a short burst of news reports about a single event. It fits
80:. Never mind all the circular arguments about BLP and BLP1E, what it boils down to is that this news story - and that is exactly what it is (
1988:
932:
708:
1364:
what is in the article. It was a mistake to nominate this article for deletion in the first place. Perhaps a merge to the article on
17:
2094:
155:
150:
758:
676:
236:
159:
2061:
2045:
2012:
1975:
1943:
1922:
1886:
1848:
1821:
1809:
1789:
1766:
1723:
1700:
1689:
1646:
1616:
1583:
1553:
1530:
1505:
1452:
1431:
1410:
1388:
1327:
1306:
1288:
1247:
1232:
1208:
1186:
1154:
1134:
1085:
1066:
1049:
1029:
1012:
981:
936:
916:
898:
877:
840:
817:
790:
765:
731:
712:
683:
645:
627:
606:
577:
554:
534:
518:
496:
472:
450:
433:
402:
388:
375:
350:
323:
308:
276:
256:
241:
204:
95:
1930:
I agree with other editors that this sort of thing should feature in
Wikinews. Some of the stuff might be salvageable for the
594:
1959:
142:
928:
704:
885:
Mixed opinions on keeping it. But as to renaming: Per the article discussion page, the more literal translation would be
804:
Crispus
Attucks (c. 1723 – March 5, 1770) was one of five people killed in the Boston Massacre in Boston, Massachusetts.
2076:
2033:
951:
889:, not really much of an improvement. If kept, the focus must be on the internet vigilantism and not on the individual.
65:
46:
1163:. If the information is relevant, and won't fit on one page, then you make a side page for it, a separate article.
2032:. Stick with the murderers - at least those examples are so utterly ridiculous as to be entertaining. Oh, and btw,
1485:
692:
1477:
1843:
1784:
1718:
1684:
1062:
972:
also notes "On
Knowledge (XXG) there's already a 'dog poop girl' entry logged, and a movement to delete it" ? --
2075:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1753:) applies. And if you're going to use big words to bolster your argument be sure to spell them correctly: it's
1008:
249:
While consensus might chance, the nominator gave no argument as to why the previous outcome shouldn't stand. -
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1123:
2005, the article might qualify for historical notability. Meanwhile some of the content could be merged into
1526:
729:
601:
254:
2041:
1882:
1762:
1642:
1612:
1501:
1448:
1080:
1043:
811:
1984:
1131:
446:
1966:
per Atama and sources listed directly above. Plus the "try try again" nature of the nom is troubling.
1672:
1600:
1540:
1514:
1931:
1866:
1836:
1817:
1805:
1777:
1711:
1677:
1549:
1415:
If it can't be merged, then I'd say to leave it be. Deleting it doesn't seem justified by policy. --
1406:
1365:
1302:
1268:
1196:
1160:
1124:
1058:
1025:
1000:
912:
755:
673:
641:
636:
Why suggest delete and link to a policy statement that clear states "Notability is not temporary"? --
230:
90:
85:
76:
1746:
1473:
1003:
and the attempt to PROD the article shows a lack of attention to the numerous previous discussions.
1323:
1243:
1204:
1150:
1004:
573:
548:
512:
466:
200:
1827:
996:
2058:
1935:
1907:
1858:
1660:
1626:
1481:
1440:
1401:, i don't think any of the reasons for merging that are listed can be applied to this article. --
1284:
725:
596:
393:
It's patently not a biography article; it doesn't even name the person. BLP does not apply here.
250:
146:
1742:
1596:
1398:
1336:
338:
2037:
1992:
1878:
1800:. How many times does that need to be pointed out? The subject of the article is a serious of
1758:
1638:
1608:
1578:
1497:
1444:
1075:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1983:- This article will never be deleted. It's as integral to the essence of Knowledge (XXG) as
1903:
1750:
1518:
1469:
1039:
2008:
1939:
1164:
1128:
977:
894:
855:
836:
786:
623:
492:
442:
1874:
1870:
1738:
1668:
1604:
1592:
1345:
1276:
1100:
744:
81:
1971:
1862:
1664:
1428:
1385:
1229:
964:
947:
778:
748:
666:
482:
305:
224:
1357:
1297:
Neither of those policies apply to this article. It is neither a bio nor a news event. --
590:
289:
1319:
1239:
1200:
1146:
968:
959:
954:
826:
I am hardly numb to the gravity of what
Attucks represents versus the banality of what
586:
569:
542:
506:
460:
415:
398:
371:
346:
196:
2025:
2022:
1831:
1361:
1353:
1106:
615:
266:
BLP1E. Any arguments for keeping it because it's a "meme" don't really work after the
2088:
1280:
886:
827:
530:
138:
101:
1633:
need not be mentioned by name—the plaintiff only needs to be reasonably identifiable
1709:
Just an example or how "one event" as news has ramifications that become historic.
1696:
1566:
384:
319:
272:
176:
2004:
1522:
973:
890:
854:
It has mention in major newspapers around the world. This is a notable event.
832:
782:
619:
488:
999:
as there are obvious places one might merge this rather than delete it such as
2000:
1967:
1417:
1374:
1218:
781:
is only famous for a single event as well, but we wouldn't send him to AfD. --
703:
is protected from recreation, then this article is likely not notable enough.
294:
808:
He is regarded as an important and inspirational figure in
American history.
441:, It is sourced and it is a notable event. Three nominations and counting...
394:
367:
342:
213:- I'm not surprised it was a contested prod: it's been nominated (and kept)
2057:— Obviously, per nominator and other valid deletion reasons already given.
1853:
Keep the examples coming guys, you're cracking me up. So far we've seen a
1804:
not a person. The lead clearly states that. It is better to compare it to
1352:
article for the same reasons. Aside from that, the article is shown to be
724:
cat. That's clearly a case where privacy should be our primary concern. -
525:
84:
anyone)? isn't notable enough to stand as an individual article. In the
700:
2003:. Dog poop girl forever! Viva la muchacha de la mierda de perro! --
1539:
As has been pointed out countless times, this is not a bio article so
1476:) and extremely unlikely to result in secondary stories or precedent (
1349:
1999:. If we delete this article, we might as well go ahead and delete
1344:
is not a biographical article any suggestions of deletion based on
696:
953:
article uses the "loosely translated" term "Dog Poop Girl" (note
2069:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1145:
The content here already exists as a subsection of that article
1675:
as an argument, this is not a BLP and ONEEVENT does not apply.
1272:
25:
1631:
To state a defamation claim, the person claiming defamation
195:
Contested PROD. Non-notable, single event internet meme.
1318:- Plenty of room for improvements, but notable nonetheless.
1103:
establishes that articles must have "historic notability"
1496:
then this "man bites dog" filler story certainly isn't.
661:
clearly applies here and the previous AfDs should stand
1492:
international coverage) is not clearly notable even on
1484:
so no merge necessary. If the serious crime covered in
1159:
A brief summary, linking to the full article, exist in
183:
172:
168:
164:
341:. No sound argument for deletion has been presented.
1757:. What's a 'decided keep' when it's at home anyway?
1443:. That would make this article a dupe would it not?
128:
Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (4th nomination)
123:
Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (3rd nomination)
118:
Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl (2nd nomination)
657:. There's no need to keep having this discussion,
1997:Greek Rural Postmen and Their Cancellation Numbers
288:- The Boxxy article was deleted because it lacked
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2079:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1195:the information specific to this incident is on
1097:. Let us pause to examine policy in this area.
1057:It's something you'd find under "Weird News".
1565:- per Smallman12q's & Atama's reasoning.
618:. Perhaps article title should be salted too.
802:let's see the intro of the compared article.
8:
1877:policy irrespective of how you reword it.
1439:: No need to merge what is already there:
361:list of Korea-related deletion discussions
355:
1991:. It's as essential to our existance as
1902:Notable and covered in RS. I fluffed the
359:: This debate has been included in the
699:got deleted, and the even more notable
337:. Sourced article for a notable event;
110:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
2021:All of the things you have listed are
1812:. The same applies to this article. --
1775:Thank you for correcting my spelling.
1989:list of woodlice of the British Isles
1472:miserably, not historically notable (
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1810:Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)
113:Articles for deletion/Dog poop girl
108:
1480:). Dupe of information already in
1397:If you consider the guidelines at
1127:, which would be a better fit. --
691:- well if more notable things the
77:Internet_vigilantism#Dog_Poop_Girl
24:
1441:Internet_vigilante#Dog_Poop_Girl
663:until something actually changes
41:deletion review on 2009 March 10
29:
2028:, and in contrast to this shit
1348:are as invalid as deleting the
995:The nomination obviously fails
47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
659:WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED
1:
810:. You got a wrong example.--
339:notability is not temporary
2111:
1486:YouTube cat abuse incident
693:YouTube cat abuse incident
2062:07:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
2046:10:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
2013:04:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1976:03:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1944:23:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1923:19:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1887:09:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1849:03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1822:01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1790:03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1767:14:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1724:03:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
1701:12:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1690:06:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1647:14:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1617:01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1584:21:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1554:20:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1531:18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1506:14:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1453:01:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
1432:20:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1411:04:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
1389:20:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1328:14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1307:18:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1289:13:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1248:23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1233:21:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1209:10:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1187:10:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1155:08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1135:08:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1086:03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1067:01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
1050:23:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
1030:23:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
1013:12:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
982:11:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
937:07:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
917:23:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
899:05:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
878:01:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
841:03:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
818:23:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
791:23:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
766:22:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
732:20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
713:22:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
684:21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
646:23:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
628:18:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
607:17:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
578:15:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
555:15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
535:14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
519:14:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
497:14:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
473:13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
451:13:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
434:13:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
403:13:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
389:12:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
376:11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
351:11:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
324:12:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
309:21:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
277:10:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
257:10:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
242:10:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
205:09:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
96:10:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
2095:Pages at deletion review
2072:Please do not modify it.
1341:That is being done here.
61:Please do not modify it.
2030:actually still relevant
1826:I agree. Its not about
929:Are you ready for IPv6?
705:Are you ready for IPv6?
1855:four year old dog shit
107:AfDs for this article:
2055:Delete Shitty Article
1857:compared to murderer
616:Single event coverage
226:DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)
1934:article, however. --
1932:internet vigilantism
1867:Death of John Lennon
1806:Death of John Lennon
1667:. To those quoting
1366:Internet vigilantism
1269:Internet vigilantism
1197:Internet vigilantism
1161:Internet vigilantism
1125:Internet vigilantism
1001:Internet vigilantism
458:Not a notable event
86:Internet vigilantism
1265:Delete and redirect
1081:robe and wizard hat
585:, discussed in the
2034:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1859:Mark David Chapman
1661:Mark David Chapman
1482:internet vigilante
1993:bears in heraldry
1820:
1798:not a bio article
1625:According to the
1552:
1409:
1305:
1084:
1042:but encyclopedia-
1028:
915:
644:
589:along with other
378:
364:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
2102:
2074:
2036:(pun intended).
1919:
1913:
1839:
1816:
1815:
1780:
1714:
1680:
1581:
1575:
1572:
1569:
1548:
1547:
1488:(which received
1478:WP:News articles
1426:
1423:
1420:
1405:
1404:
1383:
1380:
1377:
1358:reliable sources
1301:
1300:
1227:
1224:
1221:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1078:
1024:
1023:
911:
910:
874:
871:
868:
865:
862:
859:
763:
753:
681:
671:
640:
639:
553:
551:
545:
517:
515:
509:
471:
469:
463:
431:
428:
425:
422:
365:
303:
300:
297:
290:reliable sources
239:
238:(What I've done)
233:
227:
186:
180:
162:
63:
33:
32:
26:
2110:
2109:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2077:deletion review
2070:
1917:
1911:
1863:Crispus Attucks
1837:
1813:
1778:
1712:
1678:
1579:
1573:
1570:
1567:
1545:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1402:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1298:
1225:
1222:
1219:
1181:
1178:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1059:The Four Deuces
1021:
948:Washington Post
908:
872:
869:
866:
863:
860:
857:
779:Crispus Attucks
762:
759:
749:
680:
677:
667:
637:
549:
543:
541:
513:
507:
505:
483:Washington Post
467:
461:
459:
429:
426:
423:
420:
301:
298:
295:
237:
231:
225:
182:
153:
137:
134:
132:
105:
73:The result was
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2108:
2106:
2098:
2097:
2087:
2086:
2082:
2081:
2065:
2064:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2016:
2015:
1978:
1961:
1946:
1925:
1896:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1770:
1769:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1704:
1703:
1665:New York Times
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1620:
1619:
1586:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1534:
1533:
1508:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1392:
1391:
1335:- If you read
1330:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1292:
1291:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1138:
1137:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1104:
1088:
1069:
1052:
1032:
1015:
1005:Colonel Warden
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
969:New York Times
960:New York Times
955:capitalization
940:
939:
920:
919:
902:
901:
880:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
821:
820:
794:
793:
771:
770:
769:
768:
760:
737:
736:
735:
734:
716:
715:
686:
678:
651:
650:
649:
648:
631:
630:
609:
587:New York Times
580:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
475:
453:
436:
416:Andrew Lenahan
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
353:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
312:
311:
280:
279:
260:
259:
244:
193:
192:
133:
131:
130:
125:
120:
115:
109:
106:
104:
99:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2107:
2096:
2093:
2092:
2090:
2080:
2078:
2073:
2067:
2066:
2063:
2060:
2059:Jack Merridew
2056:
2053:
2052:
2047:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2024:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1979:
1977:
1973:
1969:
1965:
1962:
1960:
1958:
1956:
1954:
1950:
1947:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1926:
1924:
1921:
1920:
1914:
1905:
1901:
1898:
1897:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1819:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1782:
1781:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1725:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1702:
1699:
1698:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1657:
1654:
1653:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1634:
1628:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1587:
1585:
1582:
1576:
1564:
1561:
1560:
1555:
1551:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1466:Strong Delete
1464:
1463:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1429:
1427:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1400:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1384:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1308:
1304:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1162:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1120:
1115:
1114:
1108:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1098:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1073:
1070:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1041:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1019:
1016:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
991:
990:
983:
979:
975:
971:
970:
965:
962:
961:
956:
952:
950:
949:
944:
943:
942:
941:
938:
934:
930:
925:
922:
921:
918:
914:
906:
905:
904:
903:
900:
896:
892:
888:
887:Dog shit girl
884:
881:
879:
876:
875:
853:
850:
849:
842:
838:
834:
829:
825:
824:
823:
822:
819:
816:
814:
809:
807:
801:
798:
797:
796:
795:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
773:
772:
767:
764:
756:
754:
752:
746:
742:
739:
738:
733:
730:
727:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
687:
685:
682:
674:
672:
670:
664:
660:
656:
653:
652:
647:
643:
635:
634:
633:
632:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
610:
608:
605:
604:
600:
599:
595:
592:
588:
584:
581:
579:
575:
571:
567:
564:
556:
552:
546:
538:
537:
536:
532:
528:
527:
522:
521:
520:
516:
510:
503:
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
485:
484:
479:
476:
474:
470:
464:
457:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
437:
435:
432:
417:
413:
410:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
390:
387:
386:
380:
379:
377:
373:
369:
362:
358:
354:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
332:
325:
322:
321:
316:
315:
314:
313:
310:
307:
306:
304:
291:
287:
284:
283:
282:
281:
278:
275:
274:
269:
265:
262:
261:
258:
255:
252:
248:
245:
243:
240:
234:
228:
222:
219:
216:
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
190:
185:
178:
174:
170:
166:
161:
157:
152:
148:
144:
140:
139:Dog poop girl
136:
135:
129:
126:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
103:
102:Dog poop girl
100:
98:
97:
94:
93:
87:
83:
79:
78:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2071:
2068:
2054:
2038:WikiScrubber
2029:
1985:cheese trees
1980:
1963:
1948:
1927:
1915:
1909:
1899:
1879:WikiScrubber
1854:
1844:
1842:
1835:
1830:, its about
1801:
1797:
1785:
1783:
1776:
1759:WikiScrubber
1754:
1719:
1717:
1710:
1695:
1685:
1683:
1676:
1656:Decided Keep
1655:
1639:WikiScrubber
1632:
1630:
1609:WikiScrubber
1588:
1562:
1510:
1498:WikiScrubber
1489:
1465:
1445:WikiScrubber
1436:
1416:
1373:
1369:
1340:
1332:
1315:
1264:
1217:
1213:
1192:
1191:Not quite -
1165:
1118:
1117:
1094:
1090:
1076:Doctorfluffy
1071:
1054:
1044:
1034:
1017:
992:
967:
958:
957:) while the
946:
923:
882:
856:
851:
812:
805:
803:
799:
774:
750:
740:
688:
668:
662:
654:
611:
602:
597:
582:
565:
524:
501:
481:
477:
455:
438:
419:
411:
383:
356:
334:
318:
293:
285:
271:
263:
246:
232:(talk to me)
210:
194:
91:
75:Redirect to
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
1861:, murdered
1755:odoriferous
1745:) applies.
1673:WP:ONEEVENT
1669:WP:NOT#NEWS
1601:WP:ONEEVENT
1541:WP:ONEEVENT
1515:WP:ONEEVENT
1277:WP:NOT#NEWS
1129:Tagishsimon
1101:WP:NOT#NEWS
583:strong keep
443:Smallman12q
82:WP:NOT#NEWS
2023:verifiably
2001:Everything
1814:neon white
1747:WP:NOTNEWS
1591:Regarding
1546:neon white
1474:WP:NOTNEWS
1403:neon white
1356:by citing
1299:neon white
1022:neon white
909:neon white
751:S Marshall
669:S Marshall
638:neon white
92:Black Kite
1828:WP:PEOPLE
1490:extensive
1320:Unionsoap
1240:Fritzpoll
1201:Fritzpoll
1147:Fritzpoll
1074:per nom.
997:WP:BEFORE
570:Fritzpoll
544:Jenuk1985
508:Jenuk1985
462:Jenuk1985
197:Fritzpoll
2089:Category
1987:and the
1865:and the
1838:Schmidt,
1796:This is
1779:Schmidt,
1743:WP:BLP1E
1713:Schmidt,
1679:Schmidt,
1597:WP:BLP1E
1468:. Fails
1399:WP:MERGE
1337:WP:BLP1E
1281:Adam Zel
963:article
189:View log
2026:notable
1981:Comment
1949:Comment
1906:a bit.
1904:wp:lede
1751:WP:SBST
1697:Sceptre
1589:Comment
1519:WP:SBST
1470:WP:SBST
1437:Comment
1354:notable
1214:Comment
1119:exactly
1045:Caspian
1040:WP:NEWS
924:Comment
883:Comment
813:Caspian
800:Comment
775:Comment
741:Comment
701:an hero
566:Comment
502:Comment
480:. The
385:Sceptre
320:Sceptre
286:Comment
273:Sceptre
221:already
211:Comment
156:protect
151:history
2005:Boston
1936:Sloane
1928:Delete
1875:WP:BLP
1871:WP:BLP
1802:events
1739:WP:BLP
1605:WP:BLP
1593:WP:BLP
1523:Stifle
1511:Delete
1494:review
1362:verify
1350:NASCAR
1346:WP:BLP
1132:(talk)
1091:Delete
1072:Delete
1055:Delete
1035:Delete
974:Boston
891:Edison
833:Boston
783:Boston
745:WP:OCE
689:Delete
620:tedder
612:Delete
603:Parkin
598:Sticky
489:Boston
456:Delete
412:Delete
264:Delete
184:delete
160:delete
1968:Hobit
1360:that
1182:Focus
1095:Merge
873:Focus
697:Boxxy
591:WP:RS
270:afd.
268:Boxxy
218:times
215:three
187:) – (
177:views
169:watch
165:links
16:<
2042:talk
2009:talk
1995:and
1972:talk
1964:Keep
1940:talk
1910:Banj
1900:Keep
1883:talk
1832:WP:N
1818:talk
1763:talk
1643:talk
1613:talk
1580:talk
1563:Keep
1550:talk
1527:talk
1517:and
1513:per
1502:talk
1449:talk
1407:talk
1368:(if
1333:Keep
1324:talk
1316:Keep
1303:talk
1285:talk
1275:and
1271:per
1244:talk
1205:talk
1151:talk
1107:WP:N
1063:talk
1047:blue
1026:talk
1018:Keep
1009:talk
993:Keep
978:talk
945:The
933:talk
913:talk
895:talk
852:Keep
837:talk
815:blue
787:talk
761:Cont
743:see
709:talk
695:and
679:Cont
655:Keep
642:talk
624:talk
574:talk
550:Talk
531:talk
514:Talk
493:talk
478:Keep
468:Talk
447:talk
439:Keep
399:talk
395:PC78
372:talk
368:PC78
357:Note
347:talk
343:PC78
335:Keep
247:Keep
201:talk
173:logs
147:talk
143:edit
1908:--
1629:: "
1627:EFF
1574:ana
1370:all
1273:BLP
1267:to
1193:all
1093:or
828:Dpg
747:.--
726:Mgm
665:.--
526:DGG
427:bli
251:Mgm
2091::
2044:)
2011:)
1974:)
1942:)
1918:oi
1885:)
1834:.
1765:)
1645:)
1637:"
1615:)
1599:,
1595:,
1577::
1571:uf
1568:Na
1544:--
1529:)
1521:.
1504:)
1451:)
1422:am
1419:At
1379:am
1376:At
1326:)
1287:)
1246:)
1223:am
1220:At
1207:)
1153:)
1065:)
1011:)
980:)
935:)
897:)
839:)
789:)
711:)
626:)
614:.
593:.
576:)
547:|
533:)
511:|
495:)
487:--
465:|
449:)
430:nd
424:ar
421:St
418:-
401:)
374:)
363:.
349:)
299:am
296:At
223:.
203:)
175:|
171:|
167:|
163:|
158:|
154:|
149:|
145:|
43:.
2040:(
2007:(
1970:(
1938:(
1916:b
1912:e
1881:(
1761:(
1749:(
1741:(
1641:(
1611:(
1525:(
1500:(
1447:(
1425:a
1382:a
1322:(
1283:(
1242:(
1226:a
1203:(
1179:m
1176:a
1173:e
1170:r
1167:D
1149:(
1083:)
1079:(
1061:(
1007:(
976:(
931:(
893:(
870:m
867:a
864:e
861:r
858:D
835:(
785:(
757:/
728:|
707:(
675:/
622:(
572:(
529:(
491:(
445:(
397:(
370:(
366:—
345:(
302:a
253:|
235:|
229:|
199:(
191:)
181:(
179:)
141:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.