451:? Is it in one source that treats the subject in depth or is it a large number of brief mentions that together show depth of coverage, or something in between? For an article subject that attacks someone (who falls well above marginal notability himself, but isn't famous), the sourcing should be airtight. Knowledge has a number of articles that have very negative information on people who are notable but not very famous. It might be a good idea to change BLP policy to disallow articles like this, about subjects that may be marginally notable attacks (in this case suggesting, with a laugh, that a notable scientist is a liar). We should expect a lot more of these in the future. For now, I'm undecided on keep/delete. --
1204:(TGE): (1) TGE did not allege wrongdoing on the part of Gore; HTD alleges serious wrongdoing by Mann; (2) Gore is very famous and TGE puts no significant dent in his reputation; Mann is notable but not famous and stands to be considerably hurt by the subject; (3) and hurt because Knowledge takes the passing notoriety of the video and encases it in a museum-quality display case on our website, actually creating more harm (TGE, in contrast, has endured for years); (4) I know of no one credible who puts any credence in the allegations brought up by the video. --
1690:, although I wouldn't discount Fox simply on the basis it is Fox. Notability established mostly in the "Reception" section of article, which itself seems an overstatement. Half the sources mention the video in passing only, they are not appraising the video itself in the manner of a film or music critic. Otherwise, the fact it used to have 500,000 views on Youtube isn't reason enough for it having an article here. Particularly when it is no longer available and has left no notable legacy behind. The article content also has a flavour of
1095:. Thank your for agreeing with me, but there has been analysis provided above that there are only a few sources that are reliable, and of those, they do not "address the subject directly in detail." You state that the sourcing seems "more than adequate" to you. Does this mean you think they address the subject directly in detail (the objective standard), or just that you feel this way? By the way, I cannot help but note that your username gives a strong impression that you are here based on ideology.--
1495:. I came here expecting to !vote to delete, but there is real notability here. Of course the video itself is an exercise in gleeful ignorance, but correctness or worth has never been a criteria for notability. More importantly, the reaction of its targets (Mann threatening to sue etc) was interesting and important enough to warrant significant press coverage, as the article already demonstrates. I understand why many will want this deleted, but I believe that based on policy, it deserves to live on.
84:
1074:
notability of the topic, IMHO, and we would be doing our readers a disservice by not making that connection known to anyone who comes here to learn more about the video in question. I believe that the nominator of this AfD makes a good and proper argument that this article is about the video (as opposed to the subject of the video) and as such it is not an attack page. --
826:"An increasing number of viewers are relying on Fox News for both news and opinion," Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, "and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents."
1073:
which was recently closed as keep. The sources seem more that adequate to establish notability of the topic. If there is evidence that this is part of an astroturf campaign the appropriate reliable sources should be gathered and a section discussing that added to the article. This only adds to the
1045:
Margin notability at best, mostly blog-sourced video which is apparently no longer available on YouTube. It makes very seriously negative accusations against a living person (claims which have been shown to be false). Combining the marginal notability, BLP problems and poor sourcing, I don't see how
1028:
I am convinced by those above, especially Atmoz, that the sourcing for this does not meet our notability standards as, of those sources which can be said to be reliable, this does not meet "significant treatment." There are also BLP concerns here, and I believe when such are present, and notability
860:
refers to commentators. The fact that newspapers have editorial pages and publish columnists is the equivalent of having commentators like Glenn Beck and Sean
Hannity with their own programs on Fox. Not a good argument, Atmoz. Fox News has a news department separate from the commentary programming.
1222:
Possibly true, however I am skeptical of the notion that this piece of political satire could have any meaningful impact on Mann himself. It is the fact that these types of political pieces are gaining substantial notoriety which makes them notable enough to have their own articles. Certainly we
1599:
issue, but give little guidance on how to apply it. You take the path of "since we don't know, and can't know now, we should wait until we know." I'm not sure how I'd feel about this in another situation, but here, with BLP involved, since we don't know, we should delete now and recreate later.--
1598:
Well here's where I think the rub is. Normally we default to keep when there is no consensus, with good arguments on both sides of an issue. But when there's BLP concerns involved, we should default to deletion in such cases. Both of these sections are a bit frustrating in that they describe the
393:. Week sourcing, wrong subject. the article could be about the follow up and use of Manns "hide the decline" mail in various media and public discussions, the MFGW video could be mentioned among others. So far the actual entry is not much more than mudslingering without much relevant content.
1296:- Several comments have made note that, in order to be considered RS for content, sources must address the subject "in detail". Can someone suggest an objective standard(s?) that might be applied to making a determination that the Knowledge "in detail" requirement has been satisfied?
950:
What difference would that make even if it is true? The topic is still notable and this would be just another fact establishing that notability. If it is true, then this point should be mentioned in the article as well assuming reliable sources discussing that point can be found.
983:
If it was taken down by the people who uploaded it, that's a useful data point. If it is still mirrored by some unknown website, that's not terribly useful information. It is the internet, after all. But the actions of the original uploaders - that's interesting, if not conclusive.
332:
campaign. In any event, I suppose the questions most relevant to be determined here are whether this should this be deleted because of BLP concerns, and whether the subject is notable in its own right. In that regard, though there are some sources in the article,
1668:
for being a temporary event - the video got a "cease and desist" letter, and got pulled from YouTube. It did do a short upturn in media - and then it died down (viral video stats). There are a couple of "clones"/derivatives but none have significant mentions.
1583:
in particular. I'd argue that it's too soon to judge whether this video will have any lasting historical significance. I suspect that it won't, and in a year's time it might be an obvious candidate for deletion on those grounds - but not yet IMHO.
475:"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material
429:
When the notability of an article relies on being 6th on a weekly list of viral videos, one wonders why 1-5 don't have articles. Further, the frequent inclusion of blog-sourced nonsense to the article makes the cost-benefit analysis clear.
327:
is antisemitic drivel, whose sole purpose is to attack a group, but that does not mean writing an article about that topic is an attack on the group. However, the tagger, who can well speak for him/herself, believes this is part of an
52:
and the exact opposite. At the end of the day, the evaluation of the sources provided by Atmoz appeared to be the strongest argument in favour of deletion and nobody provided a strong counter-argument to that evaluation
528:
Article is currently sourced to major, mainstream news organizations including CBS News, FOX News, Nature, New York Times, The
Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Wall Street Journal, nor do I see any BLP violations.
287:
1474:: The more accurate content on Knowledge the better. I have not checked the sourcing myself, but anything mentioned in so many reliable sources merits at article, assuming that an editor is willing to create it.
318:
More of a procedural nomination. I declined to delete this as a G10 as the article is about a subject, a youtube video, that spoofs a secondary subject. As such it is not clearly an article that disparages
1639:. Of course, the position of climate deniers (or whatever they're called) is so asinine and bankrupt that I have a hard time imaging Mann not laughing this off, caring much, or it really affecting him.--
1725:
Not sufficiently notable. Reaching number six in a weekly viral video chart and cracking 500,000 hits is a pretty low standard, considering the fact that the top viral videos get over 100 million hits.
1083:
1193:
1236:
960:
1029:
is marginal, deletion is the right choice. As I also mentioned in the nomination, this appears to be a brief flurry of news coverage, not translating to lasting significance.--
91:
281:
242:
1318:
to continue arguing about the same crap over and over and over and... ) Also, general questions and comments should not be asked here. They should be directed to
1631:
that I see in the article. That is why I declined the G10 and have continued to disagree with the tagger on whether it's an "attack page." I said BLP issues are
48:. There is a majority (though only just) in favour of deletion. Several arguments on both sides were rather week or provided no real rationale- variations of
1172:@Fuhghettaboutit : I believe that my argument was a policy based one and not an ideological one. As regards objective vs. subjective criteria, the sources
1314:
Not really, no. Otherwise a bot could determine if an article met the notability requirements and there would be no purpose to have AfD. (Other than for
1223:
shouldn't create an article for every Michel Mann joke out there (and I've heard quite a few) but once they have risen to the level of gaining mention
620:: the video is only mentioned in passing. article quotes entire paragraph, of which only one phrase of the first sentence is applicable to this article
1635:. Here, it's that the parody is of a living person, and our hosting of the article on that parody, could affect that living person. That is a BLP
632:: Says there's a YouTube video spoofing the phrase. Entire bit on the video is quoted in the article.(Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
1251:
1213:
1104:
978:
247:
1323:
1319:
865:
argument looks interesting, but the way that guideline is written makes it look like commentary is an acceptable source for notability. --
215:
210:
635:
1742:
And especially considering that the video itself was deleted by YouTube for violating its terms of use. Literally a one-week wonder. --
1539:
is not relevant here because it is a guideline specifically addressing the notability of people; this is not an article about a person.
324:
219:
1184:
to justify the uses to which they have been put: i.e. noting the opinions of specific individuals as regards the video in question. --
999:
692:
202:
100:
1134:
It likely counts the act of nomination as a delete "vote," but if you read my nomination you will see I did not fall either way.--
1462:
130:
607:
1761:
1674:
1618:
1543:
carries little weight since it is merely an essay; nevertheless it offers no guidance as to when an article should be deleted.
1382:
1258:
903:
848:
817:
647:
604:: mentioned in passing. everything that is in this piece is quoted in the article. (Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
559:
534:
478:
302:
17:
381:
269:
623:
1425:
Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage.
662:: uh huh. Whoever thinks that is a reliable source that an encyclopedia should cite should be put out of their misery.
653:
116:
323:. Rather it is an article about a topic that itself disparages a subject. To provide an example of that distinction,
554:
Unfortunately, that editor has not provided any specific problems. So, right now, I'm not aware of any BLP issues.
1757:
1670:
1614:
1525:
1378:
1254:
899:
844:
813:
601:
555:
530:
263:
89:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1811:
1644:
1604:
1570:
1139:
1100:
1034:
659:
641:
575:
484:
377:
346:
36:
1810:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1377:
If there are specific POV issues with the article, then you should tell us what they are, so we can fix them.
1232:
1189:
1079:
956:
547:
I've asked the editor who raised the BLP concerns three times what specific article content is a BLP violation.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1796:
1765:
1751:
1735:
1717:
1700:
1678:
1648:
1622:
1608:
1593:
1574:
1552:
1529:
1504:
1483:
1466:
1443:
1400:
1386:
1372:
1356:
1335:
1305:
1284:
1262:
1161:
1143:
1125:
1059:
1038:
1010:
993:
941:
918:
874:
852:
838:
821:
724:
704:
686:
644:: mentioned in 2 sentences, the entirety is quoted in the article.(Hard to make a fair use argument for that.)
589:
563:
538:
520:
499:
460:
439:
419:
402:
385:
368:
350:
67:
1227:
then I believe the notability threshold has been reached. Such is the case with both this video and TGE. --
259:
1713:
1116:
The fox news ref certainly does go into detail, btw in the afd stats you appear to have voted delete twice?
206:
1439:
1301:
974:
720:
629:
162:
1521:
1396:
1352:
1228:
1209:
1185:
1075:
952:
870:
456:
309:
62:
1391:
Not a POV thing. No significant coverage. We have to draw the line somewhere and exclude total trivia.
1747:
1368:
1006:
516:
198:
73:
1640:
1600:
1566:
1479:
1458:
1271:
Bots are stupid. There are missing delete !votes too. For a more detailed answer, you'll need to ask
1157:
1135:
1121:
1096:
1030:
585:
495:
398:
364:
342:
146:
120:
1540:
1517:
1055:
989:
937:
435:
295:
105:
1326:, whichever is more appropriate. (This isn't just directed at the immediately preceding comment.)-
1253:
It says that there are only 2 keep votes, but I count four so far (me, MN, Macai, Rush's Algore).
1743:
1709:
1691:
1589:
1548:
1536:
1513:
1500:
1364:
1315:
1002:
931:
896:
579:
512:
152:
83:
1152:
Your nomination was more than fair, sorry if you think i meant otherwise that was not my intent
1731:
1695:
1454:
1435:
1297:
970:
716:
611:
275:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
650:: not a reliable source. They've admitted they're an entertainment source, not a news source.
617:
1789:
1392:
1348:
1272:
1205:
866:
452:
54:
843:
No, actually you just confused me. I'm not sure what your last comment is trying to say.
1580:
1562:
1558:
1475:
1431:
1415:
1331:
1280:
1201:
1153:
1117:
1070:
914:
834:
700:
682:
581:
491:
415:
394:
360:
338:
334:
966:
712:
511:. Another terrible article from the usual suspect(s). Clearly not notable in any way. --
1778:
1051:
985:
933:
431:
1414:- I do not believe that the sourcing thus far provided rises to satisfy the following
1585:
1544:
1496:
1492:
862:
809:
674:
481:
49:
1727:
329:
180:
168:
136:
236:
1565:
from my nom, which are in the same vein, not limited to people, and not essays.--
115:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1783:
487:
470:
448:
410:
It's notable, and I don't see any clear BLP violations, so it looks fine to me.
1430:
I would be interested in comments on the question of whether the threshold for
359:
Plenty of MSM sources and is a parody of a phrase from the climategate scandel
1687:
1327:
1276:
910:
830:
696:
678:
626:: reports that Fox reported on the video. That's secondhand don't give a crap.
411:
895:
I'm concerned that this article may be the victim of off-Wiki campaigning.
638:: Press releases are not reliable source, no matter who regurgitates them.
930:- has the video actually been deleted from YouTube, as William says here?
578:
has posted on his blog with regards to this AFD, is this allowable?
656:: but this time an opinion. Even less reliable, if that's possible.
1613:
What specific BLP violations do you believe are in the article?
1804:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1363:
1756:
Nah, it's still available. I was watching it just last week.
965:
Just for the record, the video is still being hosted online by
711:
Just for the record, the video is still being hosted online by
1777:
lacks multiple, independent, significant coverage hence fails
773:
I hope you do a lot of time, cuz what you did was such a crime
691:
Video appears to not be online anymore. Transcript added from
78:
1418:
guideline related to demonstrating "significant coverage"...
477:, which fox news does, even describing what is in the video
109:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
808:
FOX News is routinely found to be a reliable source at the
998:
It was deleted by YouTube for violating its terms of use.
1069:- This is obviously political satire similar to that of
1046:
this topic is worthy of an encyclopaedia article. So -
793:
Well you know its a crime and hope you do a lot of time
783:
you shoulda chopped more trees instead of hugging them.
552:
550:
548:
447:
Where is the significant depth of coverage required by
232:
228:
224:
1708:
Notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources.
1176:
make a direct mention of the video by name. It is my
294:
1579:
I agree with you that these are the key guidelines -
1324:
Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/Hide the
Decline
1200:
There are differences between this subject (HTD) and
1347:. Is this an encyclopedia or a mirror of YouTube?
610:: simply a list of their top-10 viral videos. The
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1814:). No further edits should be made to this page.
791:Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate
785:Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
771:Oh Climategate I think you have sealed your fate
763:Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
753:Hiding the snow and the cold and a downward line
898:How are we supposed to handle this situation?
308:
129:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
99:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
738:The following discussion has been closed.
729:
103:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
761:totally inventing the hockey stick chart
123:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1434:"significant coverage" has been met.
1180:that the sources discuss the subject
7:
1320:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion
797:Hide the decline (hide the decline)
795:Hide the decline (hide the decline)
787:Hide the decline (hide the decline)
777:Hide the decline (hide the decline)
775:Hide the decline (hide the decline)
767:Hide the decline (hide the decline)
765:Hide the decline (hide the decline)
755:Hide the decline (hide the decline)
614:shows that it offers no notability.
325:The Protocols of the Elders of Zion
24:
829:Seems rather clear doesn't it? -
781:The tree ring data was very thin
341:might be of significance here.--
82:
759:Michael Mann thinks he so smart
749:Makin' up data the old hard way
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1225:in multiple mainstream sources
1:
751:Fudgin the numbers day by day
119:on the part of others and to
1493:general notability guideline
1250:Why are these numbers wrong?
810:Reliable sources noticeboard
594:Looking through the sources:
906:) 14:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC
1831:
1686:. Cites are weak, as per
1718:19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1701:16:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1679:15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1623:15:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1609:03:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1594:02:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1575:01:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1553:01:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
1530:21:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
1505:20:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
1484:12:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
1467:17:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
1444:16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
1401:07:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
1387:21:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1373:21:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1357:20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1336:19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1306:18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1285:19:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1263:18:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1237:19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1214:17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1194:19:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1162:17:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1144:17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1126:17:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1105:17:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1084:16:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1060:16:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1039:15:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
1011:07:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
994:00:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
979:23:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
961:16:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
942:15:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
919:14:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
875:18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
853:15:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
839:14:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
822:14:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
725:23:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
705:15:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
687:14:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
590:14:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
564:19:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
539:13:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
521:13:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
500:13:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
461:12:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
440:11:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
420:10:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
403:09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
386:08:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
369:06:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
351:23:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
64:Penny for your thoughts?
1807:Please do not modify it.
1797:22:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
1766:15:57, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
1752:14:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
1736:02:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
1649:03:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
741:Please do not modify it.
68:15:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1627:None. There are no BLP
161:; accounts blocked for
131:single-purpose accounts
101:policies and guidelines
1758:A Quest For Knowledge
1615:A Quest For Knowledge
1491:because it meets the
1379:A Quest For Knowledge
1255:A Quest For Knowledge
900:A Quest For Knowledge
845:A Quest For Knowledge
814:A Quest For Knowledge
556:A Quest For Knowledge
531:A Quest For Knowledge
1182:in sufficient detail
733:Transcript of video
576:William M. Connolley
378:William M. Connolley
113:by counting votes.
92:not a majority vote
1316:The Usual Suspects
1178:subjective opinion
636:Some press release
44:The result was
1794:
967:nocapandtrade.com
879:
803:
802:
713:nocapandtrade.com
490:is covered here.
194:
193:
190:
117:assume good faith
1822:
1809:
1795:
1792:
1788:
1698:
1522:ScienceApologist
1273:User:Betacommand
877:
743:
730:
660:Rushlimbaugh.com
624:Nature News Blog
313:
312:
298:
250:
240:
222:
199:Hide the Decline
188:
176:
160:
144:
125:
95:, but instead a
86:
79:
74:Hide the Decline
65:
59:
34:
1830:
1829:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1812:deletion review
1805:
1790:
1782:
1696:
1671:Kim D. Petersen
1641:Fuhghettaboutit
1601:Fuhghettaboutit
1567:Fuhghettaboutit
1202:The Gore Effect
1136:Fuhghettaboutit
1097:Fuhghettaboutit
1071:The Gore Effect
1031:Fuhghettaboutit
858:our programming
739:
343:Fuhghettaboutit
255:
246:
213:
197:
178:
166:
150:
134:
121:sign your posts
77:
63:
55:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1828:
1826:
1817:
1816:
1800:
1799:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1739:
1738:
1720:
1703:
1681:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1533:
1532:
1507:
1486:
1469:
1447:
1446:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1420:
1419:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1360:
1359:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1309:
1308:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1266:
1265:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1217:
1216:
1197:
1196:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1147:
1146:
1129:
1128:
1108:
1107:
1087:
1086:
1063:
1062:
1042:
1041:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
945:
944:
924:
923:
922:
921:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
827:
801:
800:
798:
796:
794:
792:
788:
786:
784:
782:
778:
776:
774:
772:
768:
766:
764:
762:
760:
756:
754:
752:
750:
745:
744:
735:
734:
728:
727:
708:
707:
689:
666:
665:
664:
663:
657:
651:
645:
639:
633:
627:
621:
615:
605:
596:
595:
592:
569:
568:
567:
566:
542:
541:
523:
505:
504:
503:
502:
464:
463:
442:
423:
422:
405:
388:
371:
316:
315:
252:
248:AfD statistics
192:
191:
87:
76:
71:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1827:
1815:
1813:
1808:
1802:
1801:
1798:
1793:
1787:
1786:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1740:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1724:
1721:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1710:Freakshownerd
1707:
1704:
1702:
1699:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1682:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1667:
1664:
1663:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1582:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1557:Yes, but see
1556:
1555:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1410:
1409:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1345:Strong delete
1343:
1342:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1292:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1229:Rush's Algore
1226:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1186:Rush's Algore
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:Rush's Algore
1072:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
968:
964:
963:
962:
958:
954:
953:Rush's Algore
949:
948:
947:
946:
943:
939:
935:
932:
929:
926:
925:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
905:
901:
897:
894:
891:
890:
876:
872:
868:
864:
859:
856:
855:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
836:
832:
828:
825:
824:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:
805:
804:
799:
789:
779:
769:
757:
747:
746:
742:
737:
736:
732:
731:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
667:
661:
658:
655:
652:
649:
646:
643:
640:
637:
634:
631:
628:
625:
622:
619:
616:
613:
609:
606:
603:
600:
599:
598:
597:
593:
591:
587:
583:
580:
577:
574:
571:
570:
565:
561:
557:
553:
551:
549:
546:
545:
544:
543:
540:
536:
532:
527:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
506:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
483:
482:Rush Limbaugh
479:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
441:
437:
433:
428:
425:
424:
421:
417:
413:
409:
406:
404:
400:
396:
392:
389:
387:
383:
379:
375:
372:
370:
366:
362:
358:
355:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
326:
322:
311:
307:
304:
301:
297:
293:
289:
286:
283:
280:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
261:
258:
257:Find sources:
253:
249:
244:
238:
234:
230:
226:
221:
217:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
195:
186:
182:
174:
170:
164:
158:
154:
148:
142:
138:
132:
128:
124:
122:
118:
112:
108:
107:
102:
98:
94:
93:
88:
85:
81:
80:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
60:
58:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1806:
1803:
1784:
1774:
1722:
1705:
1697:Escape Orbit
1683:
1665:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1541:WP:RECENTISM
1518:WP:RECENTISM
1509:
1488:
1471:
1455:JonathanDP81
1450:
1436:JakeInJoisey
1411:
1344:
1298:JakeInJoisey
1293:
1247:
1224:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1113:
1092:
1066:
1047:
1025:
971:JakeInJoisey
927:
892:
857:
790:
780:
770:
758:
748:
740:
717:JakeInJoisey
670:
602:NYTimes Blog
572:
525:
508:
474:
444:
426:
407:
390:
373:
356:
330:Astroturfing
320:
317:
305:
299:
291:
284:
278:
272:
266:
256:
184:
172:
163:sockpuppetry
156:
145:; suspected
140:
126:
114:
110:
104:
96:
90:
56:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1692:WP:COATRACK
1537:WP:ONEEVENT
1514:WP:ONEEVENT
1393:Itsmejudith
1349:Itsmejudith
1206:JohnWBarber
1174:objectively
1154:mark nutley
1118:mark nutley
867:JohnWBarber
673:as failing
669:Therefore,
582:mark nutley
492:mark nutley
486:so i think
453:JohnWBarber
361:mark nutley
321:its subject
282:free images
57:HJ Mitchell
1694:to it. --
1629:violations
1476:David.Kane
469:Well john
395:Polentario
97:discussion
1052:Guettarda
986:Guettarda
934:Guettarda
642:WSJ op-ed
432:Hipocrite
153:canvassed
147:canvassed
106:consensus
1633:involved
1586:Thparkth
1581:WP:EVENT
1563:WP:EVENT
1559:WP:NTEMP
1545:Thparkth
1516:and per
1497:Thparkth
1463:contribs
1432:WP:NTEMP
1416:WP:NTEMP
1248:Question
928:Question
654:More Fox
630:CBC News
608:Guardian
480:as does
339:WP:EVENT
335:WP:NTEMP
243:View log
185:username
179:{{subst:
173:username
167:{{subst:
157:username
151:{{subst:
141:username
135:{{subst:
1779:WP:NOTE
1728:StuartH
1114:Comment
1093:Comment
909:Done. -
893:Comment
878:revised
618:NYTimes
573:Comment
445:Comment
288:WP refs
276:scholar
216:protect
211:history
149:users:
1785:Verbal
1775:Delete
1744:ChrisO
1723:Delete
1684:Delete
1666:Delete
1510:Delete
1365:ChrisO
1048:delete
1026:Delete
1003:ChrisO
863:WP:WEB
675:WP:WEB
671:delete
612:series
513:ChrisO
509:Delete
473:says,
427:Delete
391:delete
374:delete
260:Google
220:delete
50:WP:JNN
46:delete
1688:Atmoz
1637:issue
1512:as a
1412:Query
1328:Atmoz
1294:Query
1277:Atmoz
911:Atmoz
861:Your
831:Atmoz
697:Atmoz
679:Atmoz
412:Macai
376:- NN
303:JSTOR
264:books
237:views
229:watch
225:links
127:Note:
16:<
1791:chat
1762:talk
1748:talk
1732:talk
1714:talk
1706:Keep
1675:talk
1645:talk
1619:talk
1605:talk
1590:talk
1571:talk
1549:talk
1526:talk
1501:talk
1489:Keep
1480:talk
1472:Keep
1459:Talk
1451:Keep
1440:talk
1397:talk
1383:talk
1369:talk
1353:talk
1332:talk
1302:talk
1281:talk
1259:talk
1233:talk
1210:talk
1190:talk
1158:talk
1140:talk
1122:talk
1101:talk
1080:talk
1067:Keep
1056:talk
1035:talk
1007:talk
990:talk
975:talk
957:talk
938:talk
915:talk
904:talk
871:talk
849:talk
835:talk
818:talk
721:talk
701:talk
693:here
683:talk
586:talk
560:talk
535:talk
526:Keep
517:talk
496:talk
488:wp:n
471:wp:n
457:talk
449:WP:N
436:talk
416:talk
408:Keep
399:talk
382:talk
365:talk
357:Keep
347:talk
296:FENS
270:news
233:logs
207:talk
203:edit
1453:. —
1322:or
1275:. -
1001:--
648:Fox
310:TWL
245:•
241:– (
181:csp
177:or
169:csm
137:spa
111:not
1781:.
1764:)
1750:)
1734:)
1716:)
1677:)
1669:--
1647:)
1621:)
1607:)
1592:)
1573:)
1561:/
1551:)
1528:)
1520:.
1503:)
1482:)
1465:)
1461:|
1442:)
1399:)
1385:)
1371:)
1355:)
1334:)
1304:)
1283:)
1261:)
1235:)
1212:)
1192:)
1160:)
1142:)
1124:)
1103:)
1082:)
1058:)
1050:.
1037:)
1009:)
992:)
977:)
969:.
959:)
951:--
940:)
917:)
873:)
851:)
837:)
820:)
812:.
723:)
715:.
703:)
685:)
588:)
562:)
537:)
519:)
498:)
459:)
438:)
418:)
401:)
384:)
367:)
349:)
337:/
290:)
235:|
231:|
227:|
223:|
218:|
214:|
209:|
205:|
187:}}
175:}}
165::
159:}}
143:}}
133::
61:|
1760:(
1746:(
1730:(
1712:(
1673:(
1643:(
1617:(
1603:(
1588:(
1569:(
1547:(
1524:(
1499:(
1478:(
1457:(
1438:(
1395:(
1381:(
1367:(
1351:(
1330:(
1300:(
1279:(
1257:(
1231:(
1208:(
1188:(
1156:(
1138:(
1120:(
1099:(
1078:(
1054:(
1033:(
1005:(
988:(
973:(
955:(
936:(
913:(
902:(
869:(
847:(
833:(
816:(
719:(
699:(
695:-
681:(
677:-
584:(
558:(
533:(
515:(
494:(
455:(
434:(
414:(
397:(
380:(
363:(
345:(
314:)
306:·
300:·
292:·
285:·
279:·
273:·
267:·
262:(
254:(
251:)
239:)
201:(
189:.
183:|
171:|
155:|
139:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
