1009:
at the national level. In 2019 in
English, yes, the only thing that is readily available is that he failed to finish the marathon at the Games, but the fact that he was there in the first place suggests that he had at least some success in his home country, which is probably difficult to find information about unless you have access to Italian publications from the 1920s. WP:NOLYMPICS exists, therefore, because consensus determined that if the individual was at the Games, there is a significant likelihood that sufficient sources for a biography exist that may just be difficult to access. My work is on pre-1952 Egyptian athletes, and information beyond their Olympic appearance is difficult to find in Arabic online, let alone in English. But I happen to have access to newspapers and sports journals from that era and there is plenty of coverage on all of them that would satisfy
1712:, I think the most important aspect to preserve is his best time for a marathon, outside the Olympic events. All things considered, I think the pie-in-the-sky option would be to place the information in a "list of 1924 Olympic Marathon Participants". The verifiable information at hand would easily fit into a table. But as this doesn't exist, I believe the best option for readers seeking to find deep information about a premier event from nearly 100 years ago is to keep this article.
1708:
this that make SNGs necessary. I believe that those who want this deleted should show one of two things, either 1)that it is highly unlikely that any reliable, independent sources exist for an
Olympic athlete, from a foreign country, from 70+ years before the internet, 2)or alternatively, that community-supported/vetted guidelines such as WP:OLYMPIC are never valid and should be overturned. Re: to
31:
1349:. I am sad to see you attacking me (and I see other editors above for being deletionists with no proof) when you have no additional arguments, especially since I respected your editing/AfD participation. I'm also not going to reply further since your post above was an enough indicator that we won't get to an agreement, and I'm not going to be involved in a petty reply drama here.
950:. The little narrative there is in the article has been derived from statistical records and I don't think that is sufficient for an article. My take on the argument above is that the SNG provides an indication of potential notability which must then be determined by reference to the GNG. Achieving SNG by means of a statistical mention is not a qualifier for GNG.
505:
fields of human endeavour have different considerations — some occupations are much more prone to trying to misuse
Knowledge as a publicity platform for their own self-published public relations bumf than others are, for example, so some occupations have to have stricter notability standards than others do (although there's no human occupation for which we have
1230:. "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. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered.
81:. There's considerable debate about the sourcing for the article and whether there's enough to justify compliance with GNG. I think the arguments for Delete have the better case and policy backing, but I don't read the discussion as holding consensus for that position (it's very much split). For that reason, I'm closing as "no consensus."
1059:, so do a dozen people who don't get articles because the fact that they only have a initial for a forename (e.g. W. F. Theunissen, A. B. Mole) or no forename at all (Vincent) makes it clear that there are not gonna be any biographical info other than participation anytime soon. Perhaps we should make centralized athlete lists
1363:
Sigh. I have a pet peeve with editors who ignore SNGs. They are there for a reason. SNGs were written for cases just like this one. It does seem incredibly disrespectful to the community that took the time to carefully put these SNGs together. SNGs were made to temporarily lower the bar for inclusion
1033:
The notion that everyone who has participated at any olympics from 1896 to the present is default notable is just ludicrous. Sourcing is not there to create even semi useful articles on over half of the people who ever participated in the olympics. We need to use better criteria and destroy or revamp
655:
If you believe there aren't enough articles about scientists, then by all means you're free to do something about it — but the appropriate thing to do is to take on a project of finding and identifying and writing about more
Italian scientists who meet our notability standards for scientists and just
1262:
doesn't easily apply to
Olympic athletes because in order to qualify they would have had to medal in an important national event (in this case the Italian National Championships Marathon). Even if the article doesn't reflect that content currently, we can presume the athlete would have succeeded in
1013:
with ease. For a country like Italy, which at the time had a better-developed press and sporting infrastructure, there must exist coverage of all of their
Olympians that would easily satisfy WP:N, I just can't access it (or at least read it). WP:NOLYMPICS represents that consensus that these sources
1707:
I have all the respect in the world for
Bearcat, and while we often have different perspectives I don't disagree with what he wrote there. However, this article is not based on primary sources, and an Olympic athlete is not in the same league as a local politician. I believe that it is cases like
1008:
doesn't exist because someone decided out of nowhere that all
Olympians are notable or to override general notability guidelines. With arguably the exception of the earliest editions, but certainly by 1924, people who attended the Olympics were not just picked out of a hat, they were elite athletes
1471:
either. But I'm not sure expanding the redirect target with the dates of birth and athletic clubs of the participants is necessarily very helpful for our readers. If these editors need more time to exhaust their search for pre-internet foreign-language sources, then I have no objection to moving
872:
etc). It has wide consensus. Subject specific guidelines are almost all drawn up by small groups of fans of a subject with no non-fan input, they offer a handy guide for consistency and generally indicate the kind of person likely to meet GNG, but if there are no sources about the subject then we
504:
If you mean "consistency" in the sense that "if we decide that every
Olympic athlete is notable for being there, that means we also have to decide that every writer who ever published a book has to have an article regardless of their sourceability or lack thereof", then no, you're not. Different
1159:
viewpoints contrary to policy. If you don't like that particular SNG too bad. We follow written policy. Contrary to the deletionists in this discussion, SNGs exist to temporarily lower the threshold of inclusion in specific content areas where proving GNG compliance is difficult. Otherwise we
1314:
for a reasons just like this. The
Olympics has very specific and stringent qualifying rules which govern participation, one of which is placement in the highest national event within the sport. We can trust that any athlete that was accepted passed that criteria. Therefore
1283:
says that we "that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability" which we don't have for anything apart of his Olympics appearance so it has to fall under
799:. SNGs are there to indicate the type of person likely to have enough sources to allow a biography, they are not there to override core policy. There are no substantive sources about this person. We cannot have articles based on namechecks in results lists.
441:
Because he was at the Olympics at all, his name exists in Olympic-related references and will be seen there by people who will be looking for information about him. The fact that he didn't finish the race is not a reason why he's
609:
work like that. A disparity of that magnitude is wrong, and it's a failing of Knowledge. We need to apply a bit more editorial judgment in the edge cases like this one, in order to go some way towards leavening the
237:
1064:
1412:
I don't think SNG trumps GNG, they are an indication that GNG likely exists. Do you believe we have exhausted our search for pre-internet Italian sources, the most likely place this would be covered?
1063:, where the scorecards are incomplete to a point where we have people like J. Cox, S. Maynard, Venner, two people named Walker, Morgan, H. C. Howard, Ashurst - oh, I could go on forever. Heck, we even
462:
is a highly notable achievement by definition. So even if we deemed him not notable enough for a standalone biography, we would still have to keep his name as a redirect to some other article that
1223:
1107:
1052:
688:
1234:" The subject is notable only for appearing and not finishing a race in Olympics, ergo we cover the event which we already have an article for, instead of a separate article for the person.
642:
football has twenty teams (according to our own article). So from match one, there are 220 notable footballers (20 x 11). Maybe there simply is never going to be 5,400 Italian scientists.
583:? Fascinating. Simple reality check: Olympic athletes always have real sources, whereas scientists may or may not. Neither group is getting special treatment; both groups are simply
1014:
likely exist for all Olympians, even if we cannot find them, and so we can avoid discussions such as this and presume notability unless there is convincing evidence otherwise.
1087:
190:
417:
I despair of Knowledge sometimes. Because of one SNG we've actually got to keep this article about a bloke who's notable for not finishing a marathon at the 1924 Olympics?—
691:(all of them have surnames), five only have initials for a forename, and one of them (Vincent) only has a surname. Now is that "less notable than all the others" or what?
231:
1071:
on the subject. It is extremely important to note that if it's voted to redirect the article, this could have a huge effect on Knowledge's coverage on Olympic athletes.
1670:
1392:
No, I'm afraid that's not how it works. SNGs don't trump the GNG. Some AfD closers do make mistakes about that and we routinely overturn them at deletion review.—
634:
We're all volunteers here, and we work in areas that interest us. 5,400+ footballers vs. <100 scientists is for people interested in scientists to work on. The
40:
1569:
The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline."
305:
285:
378:
137:
1160:
wouldn't need any guidelines except for GNG. SNGs are just as authoritative as GNG within their particular content area. Stating otherwise is just false.
1060:
968:
122:
1417:
gets to the essence of why SNGs are important. For those who want to delete by redirect, what are you going to do with the non-olympic information per
656:
don't have articles yet, not to tear down sportspeople who meet the notability criteria for sportspeople just because we don't have enough scientists.
1368:
in every case, then we might as well delete all SNGs as completely irrelevant. This will be my last comment on the matter. Appologies if I upset you.
877:
of Olympians or anything else. There's no reason you can't have a list article with redirects, when you have results but no biographical sources.
1631:
SNG becomes moot because... why? How are you so certain that there aren't Italian sources from the 1920s? How are you certain GNG is not met?
197:
513:
that not every athlete ever accomplishes at all, so this isn't even as unparallel to other notability standards as you seem to think it is.
1195:
Some AFD closers do favour SNGs over the GNG, but it's standard operating practice at deletion review to overturn them when that happens.—
163:
158:
843:
to see your response and consider a reply. Either of you can ping me and I'll consider changing my !vote based on further responses.--
774:
below. If this alternate !vote helps to establish consensus and prevent a no consensus outcome, then I'm fine with this outcome as an
167:
1449:
by doing a redirect while keeping the history intact. The target article could be expanded with more info about the competitors too.
1846:
742:
a competition. They could be signed up to participate on the Olympic team and then back out at the opening ceremonies and still be
1483:
1403:
1206:
1135:
918:
621:
575:
in the world compared to the number of scientists, or (b) the amount of attention that notability-making reliable sources devote
554:
491:
428:
150:
480:
Am I right in thinking, from that response, that you feel our decisions about notability need to be consistent with each other?—
896:
117:
110:
17:
252:
466:
why he was the one and only athlete in the entire history of the Olympics who was somehow less notable than all the others.
219:
1445:
What info to be preserved? His birth info and athletic club (the 2nd one being completely trivial)? In any case we already
1556:
1804:
1697:
1614:
1521:
536:
532:
1788:. Nothing wrong with deleting and letting someone try again, preferably someone in Italy with access to local sources.
567:
The fact that there are more notable sportspeople than there are notable scientists strikes you as an inherent flaw in
1726:
1645:
1435:
988:
Only sources are trivial mentions. Meeting a SNG is an indication of notability, not iron-clad proof of notability. --
540:
346:
131:
127:
1828:
1039:
955:
213:
69:
46:
1751:. This is an athlete from a non-english speaking country who participated in the Olympics 95 years ago so doing
509:
quantified notability standards.) Being an athlete is the occupation while getting to the Olympics is a career
1809:
1772:
1731:
1702:
1650:
1619:
1586:
1547:
1526:
1487:
1462:
1440:
1407:
1377:
1358:
1334:
1328:
1307:
1301:
1289:
1272:
1243:
1210:
1190:
1169:
1139:
1119:
1097:
1078:
1068:
1043:
1025:
1020:
997:
980:
959:
922:
890:
852:
812:
789:
698:
665:
650:
625:
596:
558:
522:
495:
475:
432:
412:
389:
369:
351:
317:
297:
277:
209:
92:
1768:
1458:
1354:
1297:
1239:
1186:
1115:
993:
1824:
1581:
1342:
1156:
1094:
1075:
695:
65:
259:
1543:
1479:
1399:
1202:
1131:
1035:
976:
951:
914:
755:
617:
550:
487:
424:
154:
1756:
1748:
1681:
to have been met, deleting without prejudice to re-creation, ideally through AfC seems reasonable.
1560:
1535:
1450:
1338:
1311:
1152:
1005:
943:
360:
329:
313:
293:
273:
245:
88:
1468:
1446:
1418:
1414:
1015:
1777:
1764:
1662:
1567:
In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline.
1454:
1373:
1350:
1324:
1293:
1288:
and "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" and also see
1268:
1254:
1235:
1182:
1165:
1111:
989:
900:
661:
592:
518:
471:
382:
106:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1823:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1565:"All information included in Knowledge, including articles about sports, must be verifiable.
225:
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1796:
1752:
1689:
1606:
1591:
1577:
1555:
I don't have the time to research this individual, but it's worth noting that the guideline
1513:
1365:
1103:
1091:
1072:
904:
874:
848:
785:
692:
1722:
1709:
1641:
1539:
1505:
trump the GNG. It's good to hear that this is (one of) the purpose(s) of deletion review.
1498:
1473:
1431:
1393:
1346:
1316:
1285:
1259:
1227:
1196:
1178:
1125:
1124:
I do wonder if there's scope for an RFC about NSPORTS in the round or NOLY in particular.—
972:
908:
767:
751:
611:
544:
481:
418:
364:
342:
146:
98:
824:, Interesting. Are you saying, essentially, that because there are no sources which meet
1056:
833:
829:
401:
309:
289:
269:
83:
1840:
1781:
1760:
1674:
1595:
1280:
947:
885:
869:
861:
825:
807:
363:. A marathon runner competed in Olympic games is unquestionable notable in Knowledge.
1666:
1369:
1320:
1277:
1264:
1174:
1161:
840:
747:
731:
717:
682:
657:
644:
588:
514:
467:
406:
184:
543:. Do you really believe our notability standards are consistent and defensible?—
1789:
1763:
until a thorough search in Italian newspaper from that era proves otherwise. --
1682:
1626:
1599:
1506:
1010:
865:
857:
844:
781:
1713:
1655:
1632:
1422:
333:
446:
notable than the other people he was running next to; the fact that he was
635:
879:
821:
801:
771:
754:
that different fields of human endeavour (i.e., writing) merit different
713:
571:, and not simply a factor of either (a) the number of sportspeople there
639:
1177:, guidelines aren't policies, and if we are going to go that way, the
1467:
Personally, I don't see anything encyclopaedic enough to qualify for
712:
to applicable Olympic games article which mentions this athlete per
1364:
when GNG compliance proves difficult. If we are going to insist on
734:'s rationale above. I don't know the rules on the Olympics, but to
716:
below, subject to further reply significant counter-arguments from
1594:, Yep. Good emphasis. SNG becomes moot and there's no indication
946:, in that he took part in 1924, there is nowhere near enough for
1755:
on Google is probably not going give many results. As he passes
638:
has 277 scientists, and that's before you look at the sub-cats.
1819:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1155:. That's policy with backing consensus. All other opinions are
1055:
at the suggestion of both Doug Mehus. While the subject meets
25:
1598:
is met here. Sadly, seems like a clear cut case of delete.
454:
is absolutely a valid notability claim. It's the frickin'
1110:
is the actual proper target here where he is mentioned.
864:
describes the sourcing needed to meet canonical policy (
180:
176:
172:
1232:
The general rule is to cover the event, not the person
1224:
Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon
1108:
Athletics at the 1924 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon
1053:
Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon
689:
Athletics at the 1908 Summer Olympics – Men's marathon
244:
539:
has 5,422 people in it but we only have 98 people in
605:Sure. I understand how it works. I just think it
1088:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
758:tests. I couldn't have said it better myself; or,
72:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1831:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1086:Note: This discussion has been included in the
377:Note: This discussion has been included in the
304:Note: This discussion has been included in the
284:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1671:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart
1292:which is an argument not to make in this AfD.
1472:this content to draft space while they work?—
1263:other important races within his own country.
258:
8:
832:, the supplementary notability guideline at
138:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1310:Jovanmilic97 and use common sense. We have
306:list of Sports-related deletion discussions
286:list of People-related deletion discussions
1085:
899:, most of the biggest outlier SNGs are in
687:He's not. Of the 75 competitors listed in
379:list of Italy-related deletion discussions
376:
303:
283:
531:As of right now, we have 559 people in
45:For an explanation of the process, see
1564:
897:finally managed to get rid of WP:NPORN
268:This person is a non-notable athlete
7:
1319:can never apply to Olympic athletes.
1061:like in early modern English cricket
1501:, well, and concisely, said: SNGs
1034:the olympics notability guidelines.
41:deletion review on 2019 November 20
533:Category:Olympic athletes of Italy
24:
1759:, one can assume that he passes
1563:is a section, specifically says
123:Introduction to deletion process
29:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1673:. Thus, I believe that, until
579:them for us to write articles
400:Competed at the Olympics, per
1:
1810:20:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
1773:19:29, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
1732:23:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
1703:22:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
1651:22:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
1620:21:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
1587:21:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
1571:(Emphasis mine). This SNG is
1557:Knowledge:Notability (sports)
1548:17:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
1527:14:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1488:13:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1463:13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1441:12:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1408:12:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1378:11:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1359:10:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1329:10:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1302:10:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1273:10:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1244:10:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1211:10:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1191:10:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1170:16:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
1140:23:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
1120:10:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
1098:02:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
1079:02:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
1044:01:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
699:02:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
458:: win or lose, getting there
93:22:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
1026:17:40, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
998:11:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
981:11:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
960:08:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
923:19:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
891:16:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
875:Knowledge is not a directory
873:should not have an article.
853:16:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
813:13:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
790:15:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
666:18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
651:18:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
626:18:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
597:17:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
559:17:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
537:Category:Italian footballers
523:15:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
496:15:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
476:13:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
433:10:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
413:07:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
390:05:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
370:04:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
352:00:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
318:00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
298:00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
278:00:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
907:is particularly egregious.—
541:Category:Italian scientists
113:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1863:
1780:, Disagree that he meets
1337:to you as well for using
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
1847:Pages at deletion review
1821:Please do not modify it.
1181:exists to counter that.
569:our notability standards
61:Please do not modify it.
1335:Knowledge:Wikilawyering
1069:Knowledge:Featured list
720:et al. (ping me!), was
1575:a substitute for GNG.
971:is a participation. --
738:, one doesn't need to
585:following the sources
111:Articles for deletion
1341:and I can also turn
636:Italian WP category
1486:
1406:
1209:
1138:
1100:
1036:John Pack Lambert
921:
889:
811:
750:for his reply to
624:
557:
494:
431:
392:
320:
300:
128:Guide to deletion
118:How to contribute
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1854:
1807:
1799:
1718:
1700:
1692:
1637:
1630:
1617:
1609:
1585:
1524:
1516:
1478:
1427:
1398:
1345:back to you for
1308:WP:wikilawyering
1290:WP:MUSTBESOURCES
1258:
1201:
1130:
1023:
1018:
913:
883:
805:
686:
647:
616:
549:
486:
423:
409:
387:
338:
263:
262:
248:
200:
188:
170:
108:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1862:
1861:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1829:deletion review
1803:
1795:
1730:
1714:
1696:
1688:
1663:offline sources
1649:
1633:
1624:
1613:
1605:
1576:
1520:
1512:
1439:
1423:
1252:
1021:
1016:
952:No Great Shaker
895:Now that we've
839:apply? Tagging
680:
645:
407:
383:
350:
334:
205:
196:
161:
147:Ernesto Alciati
145:
142:
105:
102:
99:Ernesto Alciati
77:The result was
70:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1860:
1858:
1850:
1849:
1839:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1720:
1639:
1550:
1529:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1429:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1343:WP:COMMONSENSE
1333:I would point
1247:
1246:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1157:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1151:- notable per
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1122:
1082:
1081:
1046:
1028:
1000:
983:
962:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
816:
815:
793:
792:
779:
760:
759:
746:. Also, +1 to
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
653:
629:
628:
600:
599:
562:
561:
526:
525:
499:
498:
436:
435:
415:
394:
393:
373:
372:
354:
340:
328:- notable per
322:
321:
301:
266:
265:
202:
141:
140:
135:
125:
120:
103:
101:
96:
75:
74:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1859:
1848:
1845:
1844:
1842:
1832:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1817:
1816:
1811:
1808:
1806:
1800:
1798:
1793:
1792:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1743:
1733:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1717:
1711:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1701:
1699:
1693:
1691:
1686:
1685:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1661:
1658:, We have to
1657:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1647:
1643:
1638:
1636:
1628:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1610:
1608:
1603:
1602:
1597:
1593:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1583:
1579:
1574:
1570:
1568:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1530:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1517:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1426:
1420:
1416:
1415:Canadian Paul
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1261:
1256:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1218:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1099:
1096:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1047:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1024:
1019:
1012:
1007:
1004:
1001:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
963:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:. While this
937:
934:
933:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
887:
882:
881:
876:
871:
867:
863:
859:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
819:
818:
817:
814:
809:
804:
803:
798:
795:
794:
791:
787:
783:
780:
777:
773:
769:
765:
762:
761:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
729:
728:
724:
719:
715:
711:
708:
707:
700:
697:
694:
690:
684:
679:
667:
663:
659:
654:
652:
649:
648:
641:
637:
633:
632:
631:
630:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
608:
604:
603:
602:
601:
598:
594:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
560:
556:
552:
548:
547:
542:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
527:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
503:
502:
501:
500:
497:
493:
489:
485:
484:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
430:
426:
422:
421:
416:
414:
411:
410:
403:
399:
396:
395:
391:
388:
386:
380:
375:
374:
371:
368:
367:
362:
358:
355:
353:
348:
344:
339:
337:
331:
327:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
302:
299:
295:
291:
287:
282:
281:
280:
279:
275:
271:
261:
257:
254:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
233:
230:
227:
224:
221:
218:
215:
211:
208:
207:Find sources:
203:
199:
195:
192:
186:
182:
178:
174:
169:
165:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
124:
121:
119:
116:
115:
114:
112:
107:
100:
97:
95:
94:
90:
86:
85:
80:
73:
71:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1820:
1818:
1802:
1794:
1790:
1785:
1778:Dammit steve
1765:Dammit_steve
1757:WP:NOLYMPICS
1749:WP:NOLYMPICS
1744:
1715:
1695:
1687:
1683:
1678:
1659:
1634:
1612:
1604:
1600:
1572:
1566:
1561:WP:NOLYMPICS
1552:
1536:WP:NOLYMPICS
1531:
1519:
1511:
1507:
1502:
1474:
1455:Jovanmilic97
1451:WP:IMPERFECT
1424:
1394:
1351:Jovanmilic97
1339:WP:NOLYMPICS
1312:WP:NOLYMPICS
1294:Jovanmilic97
1255:Jovanmilic97
1236:Jovanmilic97
1231:
1219:
1197:
1183:Jovanmilic97
1153:WP:NOLYMPICS
1148:
1126:
1112:Jovanmilic97
1048:
1030:
1006:WP:NOLYMPICS
1002:
990:RaiderAspect
985:
964:
944:WP:NOLYMPICS
939:
935:
909:
878:
836:
800:
796:
775:
763:
743:
739:
735:
726:
722:
721:
709:
643:
612:
606:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
545:
535:. Somehow,
510:
506:
482:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
419:
405:
397:
385:CAPTAIN RAJU
384:
365:
361:WP:NOLYMPICS
356:
335:
330:WP:NOLYMPICS
325:
267:
255:
249:
241:
234:
228:
222:
216:
206:
193:
104:
82:
79:no consensus
78:
76:
60:
57:
36:
1727:revolutions
1665:exist, per
1646:revolutions
1592:Vanamonde93
1559:, of which
1447:WP:PRESERVE
1436:revolutions
1419:WP:PRESERVE
1104:Miraclepine
940:technically
725:, possibly
511:achievement
357:Speedy keep
347:revolutions
232:free images
1791:Doug Mehus
1786:assumption
1710:S Marshall
1684:Doug Mehus
1601:Doug Mehus
1540:Agathoclea
1508:Doug Mehus
1499:S Marshall
1475:S Marshall
1395:S Marshall
1198:S Marshall
1127:S Marshall
1106:, I think
973:Kasper2006
910:S Marshall
901:WP:NSPORTS
845:Doug Mehus
782:Doug Mehus
768:S Marshall
756:notability
752:S Marshall
613:S Marshall
546:S Marshall
483:S Marshall
420:S Marshall
366:CASSIOPEIA
1825:talk page
1753:WP:BEFORE
1747:- passes
1578:Vanamonde
1366:WP:SIGCOV
905:WP:NFOOTY
776:alternate
607:shouldn't
464:explained
450:the race
310:Finball30
290:Finball30
270:Finball30
84:Lord Roem
66:talk page
1841:Category
1827:or in a
1469:preserve
1453:applies.
1347:WP:BIO1E
1317:WP:BIO1E
1286:WP:BIO1E
1260:WP:BIO1E
1228:WP:BIO1E
1220:Redirect
1179:WP:BIO1E
1049:Redirect
1017:Canadian
967:Because
778:outcome.
710:Redirect
456:Olympics
359:. Meets
191:View log
132:glossary
68:or in a
1723:spin me
1667:Bearcat
1642:spin me
1553:Comment
1534:- per
1432:spin me
1370:4meter4
1321:4meter4
1278:4meter4
1265:4meter4
1175:4meter4
1162:4meter4
1057:WP:NOLY
860:, Yes.
841:Bearcat
837:doesn't
834:WP:NOLY
830:WP:NBIO
748:Bearcat
744:notable
732:Bearcat
718:Bearcat
683:Bearcat
658:Bearcat
646:Lugnuts
640:Serie A
589:Bearcat
515:Bearcat
468:Bearcat
408:Lugnuts
402:WP:NOLY
343:spin me
238:WP refs
226:scholar
164:protect
159:history
109:New to
1782:WP:GNG
1761:WP:GNG
1679:proven
1675:WP:GNG
1627:Dmehus
1596:WP:GNG
1503:do not
1281:WP:NRV
1031:Delete
986:Delete
948:WP:GNG
942:meets
936:Delete
870:WP:NOT
862:WP:GNG
858:Dmehus
826:WP:GNG
797:Delete
764:Delete
740:finish
727:speedy
610:loaf.—
460:at all
452:at all
210:Google
168:delete
1716:78.26
1660:prove
1656:78.26
1635:78.26
1425:78.26
1306:Stop
886:help!
808:help!
336:78.26
253:JSTOR
214:books
198:Stats
185:views
177:watch
173:links
16:<
1769:talk
1745:Keep
1582:Talk
1544:talk
1532:Keep
1459:talk
1374:talk
1355:talk
1325:talk
1298:talk
1269:talk
1240:talk
1226:per
1187:talk
1166:talk
1149:Keep
1116:talk
1065:have
1040:talk
1022:Paul
1011:WP:N
1003:Keep
994:talk
977:talk
965:Keep
956:talk
866:WP:V
849:talk
786:talk
770:and
766:per
730:per
723:Keep
662:talk
593:talk
581:with
519:talk
472:talk
444:less
398:Keep
326:Keep
314:talk
294:talk
274:talk
246:FENS
220:news
181:logs
155:talk
151:edit
89:talk
1784:by
1677:is
1669:at
1573:not
1421:?
1222:to
1051:to
969:DNF
903:.
880:Guy
822:JzG
802:Guy
772:JzG
714:JzG
573:are
332:.
260:TWL
189:– (
87:~ (
1843::
1771:)
1725:/
1644:/
1546:)
1538:.
1461:)
1434:/
1376:)
1357:)
1327:)
1300:)
1271:)
1242:)
1189:)
1168:)
1118:)
1092:ミラ
1090:.
1073:ミラ
1067:a
1042:)
996:)
979:)
958:)
868:,
851:)
788:)
736:me
693:ミラ
664:)
595:)
587:.
577:to
521:)
507:no
474:)
448:in
404:.
381:.
345:/
316:)
308:.
296:)
288:.
276:)
240:)
183:|
179:|
175:|
171:|
166:|
162:|
157:|
153:|
91:)
43:.
1805:C
1801:·
1797:T
1767:(
1729:)
1721:(
1698:C
1694:·
1690:T
1648:)
1640:(
1629::
1625:@
1615:C
1611:·
1607:T
1584:)
1580:(
1542:(
1522:C
1518:·
1514:T
1484:C
1482:/
1480:T
1457:(
1438:)
1430:(
1404:C
1402:/
1400:T
1372:(
1353:(
1323:(
1296:(
1267:(
1257::
1253:@
1238:(
1207:C
1205:/
1203:T
1185:(
1164:(
1136:C
1134:/
1132:T
1114:(
1095:P
1076:P
1038:(
992:(
975:(
954:(
919:C
917:/
915:T
888:)
884:(
847:(
828:/
810:)
806:(
784:(
696:P
685::
681:@
660:(
622:C
620:/
618:T
591:(
555:C
553:/
551:T
517:(
492:C
490:/
488:T
470:(
429:C
427:/
425:T
349:)
341:(
312:(
292:(
272:(
264:)
256:·
250:·
242:·
235:·
229:·
223:·
217:·
212:(
204:(
201:)
194:·
187:)
149:(
134:)
130:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.