1467:
promotional purposes on
Knowledge. I guess It’s in essence getting back at him for putting himself on for promotional purposes and now he can’t get himself off it to hide his hideous behavior to little kids. The article is very misleading to his criminal behavior because he has now pleaded guilty to the charges. Poor guy It’s very sad that he is very sick on top of it all! I agree though he is only known through his own publicity where he got in news articles etc. He has not had that much publicity regarding his child molestation. There are so many perverts can’t give them all air time on the news! --
787:. I agree that this is directly due to wanting to minimize the sexual assault case, and I don't think this makes much difference. (I certainly do not think that punishing someone for past self promotion is a good reason to keep the article.) I do not find the policy on honoring such requests to be completely clear, but my past usage (consistent with other practice that I've seen at AfD) is that a "weak keep" might become a "weak delete". Now let me examine the sourcing. We have substantial coverage in reliable local news sources, including the
1142:, if you strip away the crime (again at the time of nom this was just known as an allegation) and the questionable noteworthiness of the bird injury, there is nothing that makes him look as someone besides a local area magician who sought some publicity. That was the basis of the AfD. But yes, I agree, there is clearly much more about this individuals notability than was included in the article, and it would be very helpful if someone included that so the weight of the article appropriately demonstrates his significance in the field of magic.
1675:
Young
Magicians does not confer notability. So rather than marginally notable, in my estimation this is a BLP1E; the accusation of criminal conduct is responsible for the vast majority of the coverage. Since as others have noted, no non-primary source has recorded the outcome of the case, the event has not given him lasting notability. Much as I appreciate the problems of covering niche professions under our notability rules, I can find no evidence that this person meets any criterion for inclusion.
1081:. Therefore, without the conviction information and questionable notability (hence this AfD), I believe this was a reasonable approach. Had a conviction been known and appropriately sourced, then I would have favored keeping it. Notwithstanding, I believe that some of this AfD discussion already supports that this nature of specific crime can result in unnecessary bias - especially because many of us feel like he might deserve public shame, that alone does not merit this article being notable - per
52:. The issue in this AfD is notability. Opinions are roughly equally divided: The "keep" side thinks that the coverage of his career as a stage magician and of the allegations of criminal conduct establish notability. The "delete" side thinks that the career coverage is too thin for notability and the crime coverage is a BLP1E matter. These are both valid approaches to the issue, and as such, we have no consensus here.
769:. However, I think notability is marginal enough that we can honor a request from the subject here. Local news describing someone as a high profile individual convinces me that they are high profile in their home town. Even if the home town is a city of the size of Boston, I don't think that necessarily makes them high profile in the Knowledge sense.
1674:
article on his recovery from illness. This single article in a mainstream publication is insufficient to establish notability, and one of the trade references is to his own writing; his career has not even received a large amount of press in his field. His position heading a chapter of the
Society of
1466:
I agree the WP:GNGs are not right but this guy meets them and he is a bonafide pedophile! He pleaded guilty to gropeing little boys a few weeks ago and it did not make even the local news! I would assume from reading all this AFD he is not going to have luck at removing his article he made purely for
1137:
Mike, you did some excellent research in finding those articles - I believe that they do establish that he was someone certainly of notability/significance within his own community. It would be helpful if those things were included in the article, and it would be awesome if you would do so. Given a
799:
apparently talked about his health problems in its August 2011 issue; he also had a review column in Genii. I'm seeing someone with a modicum of local celebrity, and a modestly good reputation in a relatively small profession. I think this adds up to a "weak keep" verging on "keep" for me without
324:
regarding the outcome of this discussion. I have no personal knowledge of this user, nor any prior history with this article. And felt it would be more efficient for the community to have an experienced user present more of the facts than if the subject himself brought a likely malformed and biased
75:
Which means that I need to decide whether I should exercise the discretion allowed by that policy to delete the article. I am doing so because I do not think that this article has any particular value to our readership: both stage magicians and alleged sex offenders are very common across the world
1617:
The sources are very poor. If the abuse charge wasn't in play then this would be a simple delete. However, even if the abuse charge is notable, then that's still a BLP1E problem. Non-notable people who commit a crime don't become notable unless that crimes generates very significant coverage (and
1289:
While he is marginally notable, lots of marginally notable people are not in
Knowledge, and Knowledge is not any worse because of that. Removing this article will benefit the subject of the article and have negligible effect on the value of Knowledge. If he were more notable I’d have a different
814:
I'd like to state explicitly that we should never keep an article simply because we want to punish the article subject by recording their misdeeds for all to see; that sort of behavior would be detrimental to the project. However, I do want to push back on two parts: the notion that the article
1525:
We don't evaluate article notability based upon the fact that a person did bad things or tried to manipulate
Knowledge; we base it off of the coverage they receive from reliable sources. I believe firmly that the sourcing discussed both in my top-level comment and in subsequent comments, taken
1198:
than the former. I'm not faulting you for not knowing about the conviction, and whilst I disagree that he is not a public figure, I can see that taking to AfD was a reasonable step. As for "unnecessary bias", I think it's equally important to recognise that our BLP policy exists to protect the
971:
article that is good clickbait). Some of the reviews of shows on his old website would help support notability, if they could be verified. And I did look earlier on the NYTimes, and found some passing mentions (which I think tend to help support that he was well-respected in the magician
1106:
I don't think anybody arguing that him being charged with child sex abuse and thusly arrested makes him notable in its own right. What makes him notable is the in-depth coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent from him. All people supporting "keep" are pointing
962:
I certainly agree that there's room for good faith disagreement on this AfD, and it looks likely that I will remain in the minority. I agree that
Newsweek is fine for facts on this case, but I believe it may be suspect for establishing notability (as per the Newsweek entry on
649:"instead of making subjective proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate it." Although since those articles are behind paywalls, I cannot see if there is such subjective information. I'll leave that to you to appropriately consider.
930:
Newsweek source is reliable for the purposes that it's being used for. And, it indicates that the crime receive attention from a national outlet. It doesn't appear to have the hallmarks of clickbait reporting and it appears to have substantial original reporting (the
1443:
he shouldn't have been considered notable before the recent legal issues, and those issues shouldn't make him notable. This is why self-promotion for one's business interest in local newspapers and trade magazines shouldn't be enough for biographies to meet GNG.
630:
made to support Oliver's double lung transfer. He seems to have been a high-profile individual while performing, at the very least, and I do not see a real reason to remove negative information in his article when it is well-sourced and presented neutrally. —
1223:
than the article itself presents itself. I also agree, as mentioned in the nom, he was happy to contribute to this article, until he wasn't - which chips away at his questionable "public figure" status - which is now irrelevant (as it related to the
1078:& "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
791:. It appears that he is reasonably well-known in the Boston area. We have a 2019 piece in Newsweek about the sexual assaults, but as post-2013 Newsweek is not generally a reliable source, I do not count this for so much. We have a profile in
71:
as this term is used in US free speech law: neither being a stage magician (a routine trade) nor being an alleged sex offender make somebody particularly involved in public affairs. As such, the requirements for BLPREQUESTDELETE are met.
1653:. As noted above, sources pre-dating the sexual abuse charges do little to establish notability by normal Knowledge standards. The lack of any WP:RS-compliant secondary reporting of a guilty plea would seem to indicate the same thing.
865:. I can't find them on newspapers.com, but I don't doubt their existence. Additionally, crawling through proquest, I have been able to find additional coverage on the article subject or his acts from sources that span from
233:
983:, which I understand as a substantially higher bar than not low-profile. (The policy guidance and examples on public vs medium profile vs low-profile could be clearer.) As I say, mostly moot after the guilty plea.
1292:
After seeing more of the posts here, and looking at the
References posted above by TiggerJay, he is notable, even before the criminal allegations. The article does need improvement to include better references. --
877:
1397:
normally would mean deletion if he's borderline notable, but the specific allegations raise concerns. The motivations of requesting deletion seem to be pretty clearly to remove allegations of child sexual abuse.
1618:
even then, quite often the article would be on the event rather than the perpetrator, i.e. "Murder of X". As far as I can see, we don't even have a RS for the verdict on this one yet, a week after it happened.
1670:. Examination of the sources (I tracked down and added an archived URL for one) shows that apart from the legal charge, the only coverage of his career outside magicians' magazines and organizations is the
80:), which makes the subject a person of, in my view, very little interest to readers of an encyclopedia. Routine crimes and criminals are better covered by the news media, not by encyclopedias (
573:
1075:, aside from the allegations and non-notable illness, there was very little coverage of him as a notable magician. Therefore, the approach was that we need to "(presume) in favor of privacy"
317:, especially with the allegations removed. The median number of page views is only 1 per day when you exclude both when this allegation was posted and the current round of edits this month.
800:
the request from the subject. I on the other hand do not think that deleting the article weakens the encyclopedia, and with the request of the subject, that leaves me at a weak delete.
562:
581:
1546:
building an encyclopedia (not a soapbox!) written from a neutral point of view that is free for public use. Please keep the deletion arguments grounded within the framework of our
1065:
was applied without the knowledge of him pleading guilty. A cursory check of news/google revealed no such conviction, no other editor seemed to know about it, and it wasn't until
349:
830:. Based off of the sourcing, I think there's substantial reasons to believe that he doesn't quite fit that bill. We have a source that explicitly describes him as "well-known" (
423:
227:
935:, which is cited in the Newsweek article as a source of other information relating to the case, doesn't include the quote from the police report). This seems like the kind of
1219:
Joe, absolutely the benefit of this process is bringing forward information otherwise unknown or not previously discovered. With new information available, he certainly does
303:
The BLPCRIME information was re-introduced into the article by an admin because it was discovered (after this AfD was proposed) that he was actually convicted of this crime.
194:
873:
870:
547:
covers a particular performance of his in-depth. It also states that Oliver is a regular performer on
Broadway and that he had gained reviews from NBC News's Matt Lauer;
1393:. According to the sources I would say he's notable. Many sources have covered him just as a magician and many others have covered the child sexual abuse allegations.
59:, "discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus,
964:
403:
376:
167:
162:
141:
932:
171:
126:
896:. None of these additional sources, on their own, would confer notability. But, they do appear to show that the individual is well-known as a performer
1007:
154:
891:
853:
also has a number of reviews on it which, if the site isn't fabricating things, indicates that he's received reviews from a
Brooklyn newspaper (
831:
588:
1170:
I'll work on trying to incorporate more of this information into the article. There's definitely a lot of room to expand on the career. —
1599:, which would allow people to gain notability as a result of additional coverage received. And, I don't see a good argument here that he
301:
The BLPCRIME material was removed because he is a non-public figure and has not yet been convicted of any crime, consistent with policy.
275:
issue which he has been unsuccessful in removing from the page. As a result of himself self-identifying, his edits have resulted in a
979:
Also, although it is mostly moot: I agree he's not a low-profile individual. I disagree that a moderately successful magician is a
248:
948:), is public figure who is well-known even outside of his local Boston area, and is someone for whom an article should be kept. —
215:
838:
615:
540:
1343:. It’s an informative article. Just because something that is negative is added to the article is not a reason to delete it. --
885:
121:
114:
17:
1500:
1376:
1038:
the subject has pled guilty, been convicted and is serving his sentence, so you might take his subsequent attempts to invoke
1305:
850:
944:
For the reasons I've explained in my above comment and elsewhere, I believe that the individual is a notable person (per
783:
As I am a lonely voice, I want to expand on my argument. First, someone who makes a believable claim to be the subject
742:
is more or less GNG but just tailored towards biographies—if you meet it, you're presumed to be a notable individual. —
1765:
1747:
1722:
1701:
1684:
1662:
1639:
1622:
1612:
1586:
1568:
1504:
1476:
1461:
1455:
1435:
1418:
1380:
1352:
1331:
1311:
1277:
1248:
1214:
1203:
to suppress widely-reported negative information about people who have otherwise been happy to use us for promotion. –
1179:
1158:
1132:
1101:
1057:
1029:
1010:
as we define it, since he was a career stage performer happy to court coverage in nationally-circulated media like the
992:
957:
909:
846:
809:
778:
751:
705:
665:
640:
520:
491:
472:
435:
415:
395:
368:
341:
209:
96:
1582:
Wasn't notable before the child abuse charges, therefore still isn't now, regardless of the result of the court case.
976:
professional magician: an article would slightly contribute to the encyclopedia, but looks pretty far from essential.
135:
131:
1557:
I'd kindly ask you to voluntarily strike your responses to 力, along these lines, by crossing them out with <s: -->
1119:, which is basically GNG tailored towards biographies), which goes to show that the supporters of "keep" are making
267:
alleges to be the subject of this article and has actively edited this page since 2008. On the article talk page he
1710:
1535:
1361:
after further research there is a lot of good stuff on this character/ pedophile. Article should be expanded etc.
1039:
823:
816:
784:
762:
56:
1035:
205:
158:
1782:
792:
40:
1431:
988:
805:
774:
468:
1072:
255:
150:
102:
1394:
1199:
privacy of people who haven't necessarily sought publicity, and protect
Knowledge from legal consequences,
1718:
1658:
1635:
1778:
1680:
1082:
454:
36:
845:
and that he was regularly was a part of "Monday Night Magic". According to an archived version of his
276:
1760:
1619:
1608:
1583:
1564:
1488:
1364:
1326:
1195:
1175:
1128:
953:
905:
747:
636:
487:
431:
411:
1067:
1734:
coverage from being a magician and substantial coverage of the court case adds up to notability. —
1427:
1243:
1153:
1096:
984:
801:
770:
700:
660:
464:
390:
363:
336:
241:
221:
1319:- GNG has been met, and subject has been comfortable with the article's existence for 13 years. --
1076:
837:), and we also have a few sources that would cut against him being "relatively unknown". The 2006
1496:
1472:
1372:
1348:
1062:
1043:
1015:
915:
855:
272:
264:
64:
1591:"Wasn't notable before X event, therefore isn't notable now" doesn't appear to be in line with
1714:
1697:
1654:
1631:
1411:
1300:
1209:
1052:
1024:
646:
513:
110:
81:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1777:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1018:
was misapplied here and the section on the child sex abuse allegations should be restored. –
602:
I'm also seeing plenty of sources that would describe him as a high-profile individual. This
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1740:
1713:
applies, as the coverage is of a marginal nature, and they are mostly a private individual.
1676:
1485:
made on the talk page came across in a very harrasing way. But I did notice he is auistc!
1273:
939:
report that would be a reliable source for the facts and would contribute towards notablity.
923:
796:
735:
686:
449:
1449:
1071:
brought it to my attention on the article talk page after the AfD. Additionally looking at
627:
1756:
1604:
1596:
1560:
1527:
1403:
1320:
1265:
1171:
1124:
1116:
949:
945:
901:
766:
743:
739:
711:
678:
632:
533:
505:
483:
427:
407:
292:
536:. There are multiple reliable sources that describe the subject in-depth. These include:
1519:
1482:
1233:
1165:
1143:
1086:
973:
919:
849:, he was apparently performing on Monday Night Magic as recently as 2018. His archived
690:
650:
380:
353:
326:
284:
87:
77:
1592:
1512:
1492:
1468:
1368:
1344:
1340:
1191:
1120:
1112:
980:
968:
731:
682:
314:
68:
309:
However, this situation has brought this article to attention, and it seems like it
1693:
1628:
1539:
1531:
1295:
1204:
1047:
1019:
788:
765:. I would !vote keep in the absence of a request from the subject, per sources of
555:
188:
1735:
1547:
1269:
1187:
1445:
1036:
Talk:David Oliver (magician)#Nomination of David Oliver (magician) for deletion
1399:
710:
I don't think that's anywhere near a reasonable reading of the guideline. Per
603:
501:
861:
967:, and noticing that "well-known magician is sexual abuser" is the kind of
1228:
which is now a conviction). Overall I believe this is likely turning out
884:
for his "105th Annual Salute to Magic" show. That show got coverage from
645:
The simple usage of terms like "famous" or "renowed" is little more than
320:
I am bringing this to AfD in good faith on behalf of the user and have a
1522:'s neurology doesn't have bearing on the substance of this discussion.
1290:
opinion, but I feel that, in this case, the balance tilts to deletion.
1014:, and until now happy to try to use Knowledge to promote himself too.
554:
that focused on his double lung transplant (brief summary available
1630:) dates the guilty pleas to Oct 20th, which is over two weeks ago.
900:
and has been a public figure during his magic performance days. —
819:
applies; and the source analysis that fully discounts Newsweek.
1773:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1268:
and WP:GNG. sources and overall notability is within inclusion.
569:
that describes his illness and his role in the Magic community;
716:
People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable
580:
describing his arrest on charges of child sex abuse and a
500:
per nom" doesn't have the same ring to it, unfortunately.
1006:. Clearly notable per Mike's sources. Also clearly not a
1229:
1139:
1079:
795:, which I do take seriously. Not mentioned elsewhere:
550:
A nine-page cover story in the January 2014 edition of
268:
184:
180:
176:
240:
1194:
aren't synonyms: generally speaking, the latter is a
1123:-based arguments here for the article's inclusion. —
63:
be closed as delete". I think that is plausible that
1042:
with a grain of salt. It's also another reason that
595:
describing his arrest on charges of child sex abuse;
972:community). I'm still seeing a somewhat-more-than
350:
list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions
1186:What Mike said, plus you should bear in mind that
424:list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions
67:is the subject. I also think the subject is not a
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1785:). No further edits should be made to this page.
822:Regarding the notion that he's someone for whom
584:describing his indictment on additional charges;
422:Note: This discussion has been included in the
402:Note: This discussion has been included in the
375:Note: This discussion has been included in the
348:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1601:wasn't notable before the child abuse charges
880:that he was covered in a July 2014 review in
289:attempted a CSD G6, which was objected to by
254:
8:
1426:, as there are enough sources for notability
142:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
421:
404:list of Magic-related deletion discussions
401:
377:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
374:
347:
841:piece that I listed above states that he
1034:Also note that according to sources at
305:(Updated: 18:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC))
1600:
842:
827:
727:
715:
623:
611:
479:
1073:David Oliver (magician) § Refereences
965:WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources
828:relatively unknown, non-public figure
724:meeting the additional criteria below
7:
677:Just to clarify the criteria beyond
1627:The court website (note disclaimer
582:follow-up piece from 6 months later
24:
612:a very famous magician's magician
297:who suggested this goes to AfD.
269:requested this article be deleted
478:The nom is neutral... what does
127:Introduction to deletion process
689:which is essentially the same.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1530:. Knowledge isn't about using
1526:together, show notability per
859:) as well as New Mexico paper
843:performs regularly on Broadway
626:. I can even find coverage of
1:
1603:, given the sources above. —
1766:02:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
1748:22:01, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
1730:per Mikehawk10. Substantial
1723:20:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
1702:02:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
1685:00:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
1663:22:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
1640:02:00, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
1623:00:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
1613:23:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
1587:19:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
1569:05:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
1505:02:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
1481:I must add though, the post
1477:02:45, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
1462:00:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
1436:19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
1419:23:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1381:22:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1353:22:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1332:19:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1312:14:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1278:13:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1249:18:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
1215:09:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
1180:04:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
1159:18:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
1133:22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1102:17:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1058:06:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
1030:06:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
993:08:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
958:21:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
918:, Newsweek after 2013 is a "
914:Regarding Newsweek: per its
910:21:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
815:subject is someone for whom
810:08:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
779:06:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
752:22:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
706:06:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
666:06:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
641:04:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
521:03:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
492:04:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
473:10:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
460:02:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
436:23:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
416:23:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
396:23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
369:23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
342:23:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
97:09:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
926:source. I believe that the
826:applies, he'd have to be a
117:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1802:
898:outside of the Boston area
447:-per nom. Best Regards.---
793:Magic (American magazine)
532:. This individual passes
271:, which is likely due to
1775:Please do not modify it.
1221:appears far more notable
726:(emphasis added). Those
32:Please do not modify it.
151:David Oliver (magician)
103:David Oliver (magician)
1709:I think in this case,
1008:low-profile individual
622:describes Oliver as a
115:Articles for deletion
1548:inclusion guidelines
924:generally unreliable
628:a benefit magic show
610:describes Oliver as
1711:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
1040:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
824:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
817:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
763:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
728:additional criteria
57:WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE
1755:BLP does not meet
1692:- as not notable.
1046:does not apply. –
867:The New York Times
856:Park Slope Courier
1620:Black Kite (talk)
1584:Black Kite (talk)
1532:original research
1491:comment added by
1417:
1367:comment added by
1213:
1056:
1028:
893:Greek News Online
785:requests deletion
685:or if you prefer
624:renowned magician
519:
475:
438:
418:
398:
371:
306:
132:Guide to deletion
122:How to contribute
95:
1793:
1743:
1536:punish evildoers
1516:
1507:
1458:
1452:
1415:
1407:
1395:WP:BLPREQUESTDEL
1383:
1329:
1323:
1310:
1246:
1238:
1207:
1169:
1156:
1148:
1099:
1091:
1070:
1050:
1022:
922:" source, not a
797:Genii (magazine)
703:
695:
663:
655:
517:
509:
462:
457:
452:
393:
385:
366:
358:
339:
331:
322:neutral position
304:
296:
288:
259:
258:
244:
192:
174:
112:
94:
92:
85:
34:
1801:
1800:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1783:deletion review
1762:MrsSnoozyTurtle
1741:
1510:
1486:
1456:
1450:
1409:
1362:
1327:
1321:
1294:
1244:
1234:
1163:
1154:
1144:
1097:
1087:
1066:
701:
691:
661:
651:
618:Capital Gazette
511:
455:
450:
391:
381:
364:
354:
337:
327:
290:
282:
201:
165:
149:
146:
109:
106:
88:
86:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1799:
1797:
1788:
1787:
1769:
1768:
1750:
1725:
1704:
1687:
1665:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1523:
1483:user:JalenFolf
1438:
1428:Jackattack1597
1421:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1356:
1355:
1334:
1314:
1280:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1230:as I predicted
1184:
1183:
1182:
1161:
1083:WP:PERPETRATOR
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
985:Russ Woodroofe
977:
942:
941:
940:
912:
887:The New Yorker
882:Magic Magazine
802:Russ Woodroofe
771:Russ Woodroofe
756:
755:
754:
671:
670:
669:
668:
599:
598:
597:
596:
585:
570:
559:
552:Magic Magazine
548:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
465:Russ Woodroofe
463:Blocked sock.
440:
439:
419:
399:
372:
262:
261:
198:
145:
144:
139:
129:
124:
107:
105:
100:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1798:
1786:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1771:
1770:
1767:
1764:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1751:
1749:
1745:
1744:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1705:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1673:
1669:
1666:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1649:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1581:
1578:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1556:
1555:
1549:
1545:
1543:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1524:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1514:
1509:
1508:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1459:
1453:
1447:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1422:
1420:
1413:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1392:
1389:
1388:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1330:
1324:
1318:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1308:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1291:
1287:
1285:
1281:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1250:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1231:
1227:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1206:
1202:
1197:
1193:
1192:public figure
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1167:
1162:
1160:
1157:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1141:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1100:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
994:
990:
986:
982:
981:public figure
978:
975:
970:
969:man bites dog
966:
961:
960:
959:
955:
951:
947:
943:
938:
934:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
894:
889:
888:
883:
879:
875:
872:
868:
864:
863:
858:
857:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
835:
834:2019 Newsweek
829:
825:
821:
820:
818:
813:
812:
811:
807:
803:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
760:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
730:include both
729:
725:
723:
722:
721:
713:
709:
708:
707:
704:
699:
698:
694:
688:
684:
680:
676:
673:
672:
667:
664:
659:
658:
654:
648:
644:
643:
642:
638:
634:
629:
625:
621:
619:
613:
609:
607:
601:
600:
594:
592:
586:
583:
579:
577:
571:
568:
567:Feature Piece
566:
560:
557:
553:
549:
546:
544:
538:
537:
535:
531:
528:
522:
515:
507:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
474:
470:
466:
461:
459:
458:
453:
446:
442:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
420:
417:
413:
409:
405:
400:
397:
394:
389:
388:
384:
378:
373:
370:
367:
362:
361:
357:
351:
346:
345:
344:
343:
340:
335:
334:
330:
325:AfD forward.
323:
318:
316:
312:
307:
302:
298:
294:
286:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
257:
253:
250:
247:
243:
239:
235:
232:
229:
226:
223:
220:
217:
214:
211:
207:
204:
203:Find sources:
199:
196:
190:
186:
182:
178:
173:
169:
164:
160:
156:
152:
148:
147:
143:
140:
137:
133:
130:
128:
125:
123:
120:
119:
118:
116:
111:
104:
101:
99:
98:
93:
91:
83:
79:
73:
70:
69:public figure
66:
62:
58:
53:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1774:
1772:
1761:
1752:
1739:
1732:Boston Globe
1731:
1727:
1715:Hemiauchenia
1706:
1689:
1672:Boston Globe
1671:
1667:
1655:AndyTheGrump
1650:
1632:AndyTheGrump
1579:
1541:
1487:— Preceding
1440:
1423:
1408:(please use
1390:
1363:— Preceding
1336:
1316:
1306:
1301:
1296:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1261:
1239:
1235:
1225:
1220:
1200:
1149:
1145:
1138:look at the
1108:
1092:
1088:
1012:Boston Globe
1011:
1003:
936:
927:
920:case-by-case
897:
892:
886:
881:
876:) and I see
866:
860:
854:
839:Boston Globe
833:
789:Boston Globe
758:
719:
718:
717:
696:
692:
674:
656:
652:
617:
606:Boston Globe
605:
590:
575:
565:Boston Globe
564:
551:
543:Boston Globe
542:
529:
510:(please use
497:
448:
444:
443:
386:
382:
359:
355:
332:
328:
321:
319:
310:
308:
300:
299:
281:
263:
251:
245:
237:
230:
224:
218:
212:
202:
108:
89:
74:
60:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1677:Yngvadottir
1558:</s: -->
1322:Orange Mike
1063:WP:BLPCRIME
1044:WP:BLPCRIME
1016:WP:BLPCRIME
933:WCVB report
759:Weak delete
273:WP:BLPCRIME
228:free images
1605:Mikehawk10
1561:Mikehawk10
1540:Knowledge
1226:accusation
1172:Mikehawk10
1140:references
1125:Mikehawk10
1109:explicitly
950:Mikehawk10
902:Mikehawk10
767:Mikehawk10
744:Mikehawk10
647:WP:PEACOCK
633:Mikehawk10
484:Mikehawk10
428:Lightburst
408:Lightburst
293:Mikehawk10
265:User:Domag
90:Sandstein
82:WP:NOTNEWS
1779:talk page
1520:JalenFolf
1448:(powera,
1416:on reply)
1196:lower bar
1166:Tiggerjay
1068:GlenoverB
916:RSP Entry
862:Taos News
736:WP:ARTIST
687:WP:ARTIST
681:includes
518:on reply)
285:JalenFolf
37:talk page
1781:or in a
1757:WP:BLP1E
1597:WP:BASIC
1559:tags. —
1528:WP:BASIC
1513:Rrmmll22
1501:contribs
1493:Rrmmll22
1489:unsigned
1469:Rrmmll22
1414:|Chess}}
1412:reply to
1377:contribs
1369:Rrmmll22
1365:unsigned
1345:Rrmmll22
1266:WP:BASIC
1117:WP:BASIC
946:WP:BASIC
937:Newsweek
928:specific
878:evidence
740:WP:BASIC
712:WP:BASIC
679:WP:BASIC
591:Newsweek
576:MassLive
534:WP:BASIC
516:|Chess}}
514:reply to
195:View log
136:glossary
39:or in a
1694:GoodDay
1297:rsjaffe
1264:- per
1188:notable
974:WP:MILL
851:website
847:website
720:without
675:Comment
498:Neutral
482:mean?—
480:per nom
456:Maniik✨
234:WP refs
222:scholar
168:protect
163:history
113:New to
78:WP:MILL
1753:Delete
1736:Bilorv
1707:Delete
1690:Delete
1668:Delete
1651:Delete
1593:WP:GNG
1580:Delete
1538:, but
1446:User:力
1441:Delete
1341:WP:GNG
1339:meets
1284:Delete
1270:BabbaQ
1245:(talk)
1236:Tigger
1155:(talk)
1146:Tigger
1121:WP:PAG
1113:WP:GNG
1098:(talk)
1089:Tigger
732:WP:ENT
702:(talk)
693:Tigger
683:WP:ENT
662:(talk)
653:Tigger
445:Delete
392:(talk)
383:Tigger
365:(talk)
356:Tigger
338:(talk)
329:Tigger
315:WP:GNG
206:Google
172:delete
50:delete
1544:about
1400:Chess
832:from
620:piece
616:2015
608:piece
604:2014
593:piece
589:2019
578:piece
574:2019
563:2017
545:piece
541:2006
502:Chess
451:✨Lazy
313:fail
311:might
277:COI/N
249:JSTOR
210:books
189:views
181:watch
177:links
65:Domag
16:<
1742:talk
1728:Keep
1719:talk
1698:talk
1681:talk
1659:talk
1636:talk
1609:talk
1565:talk
1497:talk
1473:talk
1432:talk
1424:Keep
1404:talk
1391:Keep
1373:talk
1349:talk
1337:Keep
1328:Talk
1317:Keep
1286:Keep
1274:talk
1262:Keep
1210:talk
1190:and
1176:talk
1129:talk
1115:(or
1053:talk
1025:talk
1004:Keep
989:talk
954:talk
906:talk
890:and
806:talk
775:talk
761:per
748:talk
734:and
637:talk
614:. A
556:here
530:Keep
506:talk
488:talk
469:talk
432:talk
412:talk
242:FENS
216:news
185:logs
159:talk
155:edit
55:Per
1534:to
1240:Jay
1205:Joe
1201:not
1150:Jay
1111:to
1093:Jay
1048:Joe
1020:Joe
697:Jay
657:Jay
387:Jay
360:Jay
333:Jay
279:.
256:TWL
193:– (
84:).
61:may
1759:.
1746:)
1721:)
1700:)
1683:)
1661:)
1638:)
1611:)
1567:)
1542:is
1503:)
1499:•
1475:)
1460:)
1454:,
1434:)
1410:{{
1406:)
1379:)
1375:•
1351:)
1325:|
1307:🖉
1302:🗩
1276:)
1232:.
1178:)
1131:)
1085:.
991:)
956:)
908:)
808:)
777:)
750:)
738:;
714:,
639:)
587:A
572:A
561:A
558:);
539:A
512:{{
508:)
490:)
471:)
434:)
426:.
414:)
406:.
379:.
352:.
236:)
187:|
183:|
179:|
175:|
170:|
166:|
161:|
157:|
1738:(
1717:(
1696:(
1679:(
1657:(
1634:(
1607:(
1595:/
1563:(
1550:.
1515::
1511:@
1495:(
1471:(
1457:ν
1451:π
1430:(
1402:(
1371:(
1347:(
1272:(
1212:)
1208:(
1174:(
1168::
1164:@
1127:(
1055:)
1051:(
1027:)
1023:(
987:(
952:(
904:(
874:2
871:1
869:(
804:(
773:(
746:(
635:(
504:(
496:"
486:(
467:(
430:(
410:(
295::
291:@
287::
283:@
260:)
252:·
246:·
238:·
231:·
225:·
219:·
213:·
208:(
200:(
197:)
191:)
153:(
138:)
134:(
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.