514:
which is great, but then you go on to say "as all
Norwegian companies must make their financials public", which is bad. A company's financial information is not "Independent Content" since it was produced by the company, so that type of reference can be used to support facts and figures within the article but doesn't assist in establishing notability. By all means if there are Norwegian language articles which meet NCORP requirements, please post the links here, but please don't post links to articles that rely on company financials, company announcements (including articles that "reword" the announcements but are still entirely based on the announcement), financial results, product reviews (the topic is the company, not a product), etc as these do not assist in establishing notability.
1008:
with that so we're on the same page so far. But. We don't rely on "a combination" of sources to confer notability, we only require "multiple" sources. Don't want to put words in your mouth but perhaps you are looking at all references/sources in an article and believe they must all of the standard to establish notability? We're not saying that *only* sources that meet NCORP can be referenced in an article, we're not saying we can only reference "critical significant coverage" in an article. Of course you can have lots of references and to be clear, we only need a minimum of two sources that meet NCORP - the rest have nothing to do with establishing notability but may be important for supporting various facts or information. We're still trying to identify two sources that meet NCORP.
799:) and "significant coverage" but it plainly isn't "Independent Content" as it is based on an announcement/interview with "connected people" with no independent opinion/investigation/analysis/etc *about the company* (and not the product). The next article linked in the search results returns one from Finansavisen which merely mentions the company name, no in-depth information. The next link is from "Teknisk Ukeblad" which also relies entirely on information and data provided by the company and is mostly about the product (solar panel) that the company. I'm not going to go through all the links - any ones I've checked fail the criteria for establishing notability and mostly because they either don't have "Independent Content" or don't talk about the company but about the product.
1132:- I can provide links to articles about changes to the organization, new chairman of the board, the impact of raw material pricing during Covid, that the company had record revenue in 2020, that the CEO of Isola was the chairman of the building material industry organization in Norway and has recently stepped down, that the company has invested in environmental documentation, there are more than 100 articles written about the company (I know that the number does not matter, but there is a lot of content), its products, and its business. Please let me know if you would consider any of these articles as valid material and I will be happy to add them (just want to make sure that I am not
867:
reference 4 provides some information on the company, we need multiple references and to date it is fair to say that nothing has been found. This isn't surprising. For most of this company's life, it was a building materials company but remained private, never listing on any stock exchange, but most recently has launched (with great fanfare) their range of solar powered roofing products. Just about every reference is in relation to their solar powered products as you may have noticed. The article as it stand is
355:. Given the age of the company, it's likely that there are enough independent Norwegian language articles about its corporate activities in the Norwegian business press to provide the necessary notability, so I think we'd be better to let the article be improved over time. I imagine that sooner or later a Norwegian speaker will do the necessary digging to bring this article up to scratch.
834:, let alone subject-specific criteria (which do not supersede GNG anyway), so you're unlikely to sway me with vague appeals to guidelines. Instead of pointing to policy that most of us are familiar with, would you like to address some of the specific references now included and tell us why you believe that (combined) they don't rise to the level of our GNG?
1299:(There is no relationship between Finansavisen or the author of the news article and Isola. The article covers investigation and analysis done by the author which leads to the authors published opinion that "there are only profit crumbs left from roofing" - translated from "Tjener smuler på tette tak"), it is from a
953:
section of GNG explicitly points us to the NCORP guideline for establishing notability. NCORP explicitly points out that *each* source must be the guidelines and that multiple sources (where *each* meets the guidelines) is required. Combining is *not* what we do - at least when it comes to NCORP. And
884:
SNGs also serve additional and varying purposes depending on the topic. Some SNGs, for example the ones in the topic areas of films, biographies, and politicians, provide guidance when topics should not be created. SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant
787:
Audited
Accounts: The fact that a company's accounts are audited (independently verified) and centrally filed makes no difference - most every company can chose to file audited accounts in every country in the world and in some countries it is mandatory to file audited accounts but that does not make
488:
and you've mentioned a lot of things above which I will comment on in the context of the guidelines. Be aware that of course you have a !vote and it makes no difference if you created the article or not. Also be aware that there are two types of reference - ones that support a fact within the article
644:
have both added and refined references in a range of languages. They include a couple of references I found, and a fair few I didn't. There are some behind paywalls (especially the Varden ones) and while that doesn't invalidate them as sources, it does make it challenging for editors to review them.
1139:
Regarding the audited financials; I have no problem with this information not being a factor of consideration. The information was provided to show some insight into the process to create financial transparency in Norway and to provide information about the company size, please feel free to ignore
866:
Yes, I've looked not only at the references in the article but I've also searched online for other references and while I think a good case can be made for an article on the founder, Harald Thiis-Evensen who was awarded the
Kongens_fortjenstmedalje - a Norwegian award of Merit - in 1988, and while
858:
And so we get to the point in the AfD where variations of "Have you looked hard enough at the references, you must be mistaken because I think and am sure they're OK." Or "I don't like NCORP because it's too strict and makes it impossible to find references". Or "I much prefer GNG and I'm sure the
441:
it though. I updated the article with international references to show that the products are sold in several countries. As a product company with no scandals, there is not a lot of public information beyond the products. There is significant company coverage in
Norwegian as all Norwegian companies
1007:
needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must also be multiple such sources to establish notability. If the suitability of a source is in doubt, it is better to exercise caution and exclude the source for the purposes of establishing notability." You agree
719:
fullfil the requirements for general notability and significant coverage, please let me know if we need more content. Regarding the
Norwegian published financial numbers; please be aware that while the numbers do originate from the company (they have to) they are fully audited (Isola's auditor is
513:
So, you've said above that "there is not a lot of public information beyond the products". Since the article is about the company, not the products, this isn't a good sign that we'll find "multiple references" that meet NCORP. You've also said "there is significant company coverage in
Norwegian",
809:
are required in each reference: Getting a company's product profiled in a well-known prestigious reliable publication does not meet our requirements if the article simply regurgitates company-produced information and data without any "Independent
Content" *about the company*. Similarly, a brief
815:
Some examples of good references include analyst reports - perhaps the company is recognized as leader/innovator/notable in a particular field and has featured in an analyst report? Or perhaps a journalist was impressed with the longevity of the company and wrote an article on its history and
1248:
amount to company announcements (not independent coverage) and are more routine information. For example, new salesman, new executives, building space, revenue record and so on. And without significant independent coverage this also contravenes WP:GNG and NCORP. Also, Knowledge (XXG) is
528:
says nothing about interviews, and interviews of company representatives by independent journalists are perfectly acceptable. In fact, interviews of company representatives by independent journalists are exactly the type of coverage we're looking for because that's how journalism
906:
I don't intend to continue to respond in circumstances where no new references are being produced. Clearly you have a different interpretation on the criteria for notability of companies, preferring GNG to NCORP, and I'm satisfied we both understand each other's position.
1019:
I don't think my using synonyms will make it any clearer for you, so I will leave it at this: the multiple reliable sources cited by other editors are sufficient for me to believe this meets the threshold of notability. Misinterpretations of guidelines are unconvincing.
816:
included sufficient "Independent
Content"? Or perhaps a journalist/author was impressed with the company growth or revenues and wrote an article containing sufficient "Independent Content" rather than reacting/writing an article because the company made an announcement?
859:
references meet GNG" Or "I don't care what you say, I'm entitled to my own opinion and I'm not going to change my mind no matter what". Fine. I'm sure that like me, the closing admin has seen this many times before. But nevertheless I will try to answer your questions.
772:, the search link added is not a reference to an article, but a reference to a search for the company name. That does not meet any of our requirements as we need links to articles (hence the request to post links to any THREE articles). Be aware especially that
1127:
As the company is not public, it is uncommon to have financial analysts covering the company. There is however significant information from analysts in trade related magazines that cover the building material companies and their businesses. Take a look at
810:
opinion/fact check/analysis that meets "Independent
Content" but fails to provide sufficient in-depth information on the company also fails our requirements. This is a deliberate high standard for companies/organization for a variety of reasons.
965:
No, I think you've misunderstood what I'm saying. Of course, each source must be independent, reliable, and constitute significant coverage on its own. But a single source isn't sufficient to confer notability, so we rely on
970:(and a combination of those multiple sources) to confer notability. That an otherwise reliable source has published positive coverage of a company does not make it unreliable, or no longer independent. If we included only
1068:
as far as I can see. Not convinced by the sources (some are primary sources such as the company’s site or websites selling the company’s products). When the references are the longest section of the article it raises the
885:
for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies.
931:
reliable sources; one isn't enough and only by a combination of those multiple sources can we assess notability. Of course they must individually be independent, reliable sources, but combining them is what we do.
918:
I don't prefer one over the other and haven't (above or anywhere else) expressed a preference for one or the other. Nor a dislike for one or the other. I'm simply of the view that if a subject meets one, it is not
1258:
Lastly, Calviking previously acknowledged the lack of significant information available on this company in. I think continuing to post unusable references in the article and at this AFD is beginning to amount to
889:
Finally, you request specifically why the references (combined) don't rise to the level of GNG. That is because we don't combine references when establishing notability and this is made clear in NCORP which says
202:
829:
Have you been through the references that have now been included in the article? Many of them are exactly what you're asking for. They are more than enough for me to believe the subject easily meets our
1161:
There is now only one reference to the company website (corporate structure), all other references are external. I'll be happy to remove that one reference if it makes the article better.
684:
556:
1362:
The main thrust of the Delete !voters are that none of the references meet NCORP. Your !vote mentions "improvements" since deletion but can you point to any reference that meets NCORP?
1474:
451:
1116:
relies entirely on information and data provided by the company: Teknisk
Ukeblad is an established and independent publication with journalistic integrity. The article is referencing
954:
that "independent" doesn't mean only the interpretation of "publisher and topic company are different companies, not a primary source" but must also include "independent content".
1428:. It is just a run-of-the-mill company with run-of-the-mill coverage, which is why its reference section is longer then the text of the article. There is no sustained independent
163:
724:, so they are independently verified and not only produced by the company. I really appreciate the work that the WP community is doing to make these articles better, Thanks!
252:
196:
269:
788:
those companies notable nor are those filings regarded as meeting the criteria for establishing notability. So the gap which still exists is "Independent Content".
1155:
region. Three pages 82-84 covers Isola and its business with specific reference to its 60 year longevity and how the company was started from virtually nothing.
393:
I checked the sources on the Norwegian version of this article. They do not support notability for this topic at this time on the English Wiikipedia. Sorry. ---
95:
878:
the other, although it is a general rule of thumb that the SNGs provide more explicit guidelines and should be given more attention. This is reflected in the
874:
You say that that a subject-specific guideline doesn't supercede GNG. The GNG and the SNG are both guidelines with the same "weight", one doesn't explicitly
369:
Sorry to say, but - speculation about sources that might exist does not demonstrate notability. Based on the above RomanSpa comment, perhaps this article is
1236:
has gone over all of the above with advice on how to determine what are acceptable sources. The most recent post is essentially a regurgitation of the same
110:
1268:
As HighKing noted above, the best way to learn about acceptable sources is to read the notability criteria on the appropriate pages. Thanks very much. ---
776:
requires "Independent Content" in order to count towards establishing notability, and although I've posted the definition above, I'll repeat it again -
1475:
https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/industri/2021/04/22/7659671/bjornar-gulliksen-og-ketil-johansen-i-isola-har-gjennomsnittlig-lonnsomhet-pa-1-6-prosent
462:. The company name tend to drown in web searches as isola means island in Spanish. Would it help if I created a timeline of Norwegian news articles?
452:
https://finansavisen.no/nyheter/industri/2021/04/22/7659671/bjornar-gulliksen-og-ketil-johansen-i-isola-har-gjennomsnittlig-lonnsomhet-pa-1-6-prosent
778:
original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
508:
original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject
791:
References: You say that you "believe" that the Varden newspaper articles fulfill the requirement for "general notability" (I assume you mean
780:. So nothing that relies on company announcements (including financial results which is regarded as trivial routine coverage - see NCORP).
949:
And that's fine and thank you for clarifying your position. But I will point out that our guidelines don't agree with your opinion. The
136:
131:
140:
90:
83:
17:
721:
123:
443:
1245:
There are lists and descriptions of trivial coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH if anyone cares to look. Also, links provided such as this
1377:
1263:
and is a waste of everybody's time. In other words, I know I don't have time to characterize or explain every specific source.
1240:
of sources. For one thing, they are routine information about the company or its products, and is considered trivial coverage.
1144:
569:
217:
104:
100:
184:
1202:
604:
308:
1148:
1458:
40:
871:- you don't need 18 references to support the fact that the company sells products in Sweden, Denmark, UK and Germany.
923:
required to meet the other. And I remain of the view that the references provided are enough for the subject to meet
666:
While I agree that some editors have provided links, I don't see any that meet NCORP requirements. Can you point to
1376:- There are at least two: The article in Finansavisen listed above (my comment on 18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)) and
1078:
178:
1315:(it provides the author's own analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of the input from the primary source).
1124:
which are both internationally renown research institutes, it is hard to find more reliable sources in Norway.
967:
442:
must make their financials public, unfortunately this is in Norwegian, so a translator is required to read it
1441:
1416:
1389:
1368:
1353:
1324:
1277:
1222:
1193:
1105:
I removed all the links to resellers and distributors as it is perceived as having negative value and being
1082:
1032:
1014:
986:
960:
944:
913:
846:
822:
755:
676:
657:
622:
593:
574:
541:
520:
471:
432:
402:
382:
364:
347:
328:
299:
278:
261:
244:
65:
1133:
1106:
1070:
1437:
174:
802:
499:
415:
1454:
1373:
1273:
1217:
1189:
692:
618:
398:
378:
343:
36:
1260:
1250:
1385:
1320:
1171:
729:
467:
294:
224:
127:
868:
370:
1411:
1349:
1095:
1074:
210:
1429:
806:
773:
525:
503:
419:
708:
565:
360:
323:
1288:
1065:
796:
740:
700:
696:
667:
584:
580:
485:
423:
290:
1246:
1147:- this is a book published by "Skiensfjordens Polytekniske Forening" which is local chapter of
1129:
447:
1433:
699:? If it does not, then please help us identify the gaps so that we can fill them. I looked at
79:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1453:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1425:
992:
510:. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc.
444:
https://www.proff.no/selskap/isola-holding-as/porsgrunn/eiendomshandel-og-utleie/IDG1HBO10MV/
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1295:(the primary topic in the article is Isola and the limited profitability over 10 years), is
1269:
1213:
1185:
1022:
976:
934:
836:
769:
745:
647:
614:
531:
394:
374:
339:
1378:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140222064631/http://www.polytekniske.no/Pionerer/Pionerer.pdf
1333:
1145:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140222064631/http://www.polytekniske.no/Pionerer/Pionerer.pdf
950:
924:
879:
831:
792:
633:
190:
1381:
1341:
1316:
1308:
1167:
1113:
991:
OK, perhaps, and I'm still not sure - it is your use of "combination" which is confusing.
765:
725:
712:
637:
481:
463:
422:, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails
119:
71:
63:
506:. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include
490:
1109:, the intent was to provide a reference, not to provide noise - sorry for the confusion.
739:
They are in the article and there are more than three. And I agree with the above about
704:
1403:
1345:
716:
498:
WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
437:
I am not sure that I have a "vote" as I am the creator of the article, I would like to
273:
256:
1401:, run-of-the-mill company with no secondary analysis in the run-of-the-mill coverage.
1158:
I added a reference to Isola's investments in the door and windows production in Røros
1363:
1337:
1233:
1091:
1009:
955:
908:
817:
688:
671:
641:
588:
561:
515:
427:
356:
318:
240:
1287:
I am still working on improving the article and added one more reference that meets
1304:
157:
927:. Notability is necessarily reflective of combined sources, because we require
53:
720:
Deloitte) and are extracted from the Norwegian government records from the
1152:
235:
455:
446:. There are newspaper articles available (sometimes behind paywall) see
1164:
I am here to make WP articles better, please let me know how I can help
1151:- the book covers the 100 year history of business development in the
1140:
it. I assume that it cannot be negative that this information exists.
1121:
459:
583:. If you believe there are good references, post links to the best
559:
are some Norwegian-language news articles translated into English.
338:
Fails NCORP lacks independent coverage by independent sources. ---
1003:
of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability;
900:
of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability.
1449:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1336:, thanks to improvements made since the deletion nomination by
493:) and ones that help to establish notability (must meet NCORP).
1117:
882:
section of GNG itself. Note the last sentence in particular:
1205:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
607:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
311:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1130:
https://www.bygg.no/search/?q=isola&sort=date&date=0
974:
significant coverage, we would barely have an encyclopedia.
448:
https://www.bygg.no/search/?q=isola&sort=date&date=0
414:
I am unable to locate any deep or significant coverage with
1307:
is a mainstream newspaper, and the article is written by
705:
https://en.wikipedia.org/User:RoySmith/Three_best_sources
153:
149:
145:
743:
being a helpful essay, but nowhere close to a policy.
209:
795:
which is not the appropriate guideline, it should be
1211:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
695:- does the new content fulfil the requirements for
613:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
317:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
223:
703:(It looks like the page redirects to a user page (
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1461:). No further edits should be made to this page.
268:Note: This discussion has been included in the
251:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1311:who is one of their journalists), and it is a
253:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
1184:please add a signature to the above post. ---
8:
111:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
270:list of Norway-related deletion discussions
267:
250:
502:and (this bit is important!) containing
1467:
500:in-depth information *on the company*
456:https://www.varden.no/search/?q=isola
289:- lacks independent coverage to meet
233:fails NCORP. no substantial coverage
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1291:. The article in Finansavisen meets
707:) and believe that the articles in
416:in-depth information on the company
24:
460:https://www.ta.no/sok?query=isola
96:Introduction to deletion process
1118:Institute for Energy Technology
484:, the appropriate guideline is
1:
1442:14:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
1033:06:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
542:06:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
66:01:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
1251:not a platform for promotion
1149:Polytechnic Society (Norway)
1112:I disagree that articles in
636:. Ask and ye shall receive.
1417:06:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
1390:06:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
1369:14:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
1354:21:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
1325:18:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
1278:20:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
1223:13:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
1194:00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
1083:11:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
1015:16:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
987:00:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
961:14:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
945:02:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
914:11:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
847:04:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
823:16:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
756:23:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
722:Brønnøysund Register Centre
677:18:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
658:05:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
623:04:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
594:10:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
575:18:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
521:10:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
472:00:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
433:17:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
86:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1493:
403:01:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
383:01:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
365:23:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
348:23:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
329:05:13, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
300:09:40, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1380:- both fulfill WP:NCORP.
279:18:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
262:18:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
245:04:13, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
1451:Please do not modify it.
587:below and we will look.
32:Please do not modify it.
1143:Please take a look at
504:"Independent Content"
84:Articles for deletion
1293:significant coverage
691:provided (Thanks!).
420:independent content
709:Varden (newspaper)
1225:
999:source must meet
896:source must meet
625:
331:
281:
264:
101:Guide to deletion
91:How to contribute
1484:
1477:
1472:
1415:
1408:
1313:secondary source
1309:Anders Horntvedt
1253:of this company.
1221:
1210:
1208:
1206:
1029:
1027:
983:
981:
968:multiple sources
941:
939:
843:
841:
752:
750:
654:
652:
612:
610:
608:
573:
538:
536:
326:
321:
316:
314:
312:
276:
259:
228:
227:
213:
161:
143:
81:
61:
34:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1459:deletion review
1404:
1402:
1301:reliable source
1226:
1212:
1201:
1199:
1114:Teknisk Ukeblad
1025:
1023:
979:
977:
937:
935:
839:
837:
748:
746:
713:Teknisk Ukeblad
650:
648:
626:
603:
601:
560:
534:
532:
418:and containing
332:
324:
319:
307:
305:
296:MrsSnoozyTurtle
274:
257:
170:
134:
120:Isola (Company)
118:
115:
78:
75:
72:Isola (Company)
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1490:
1488:
1479:
1478:
1466:
1464:
1463:
1445:
1444:
1419:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1371:
1357:
1356:
1327:
1281:
1280:
1265:
1264:
1255:
1254:
1242:
1241:
1232:I notice that
1209:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1156:
1141:
1137:
1125:
1110:
1100:
1099:
1096:Vladimir.copic
1085:
1075:Vladimir.copic
1073:alarm for me.
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
904:
903:
902:
887:
872:
861:
860:
850:
849:
813:
812:
811:
800:
789:
782:
781:
759:
758:
734:
733:
717:Telemarksavisa
680:
679:
661:
660:
611:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
511:
495:
494:
475:
474:
435:
408:
407:
406:
405:
388:
387:
386:
385:
350:
315:
304:
303:
302:
283:
282:
265:
231:
230:
167:
114:
113:
108:
98:
93:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1489:
1476:
1471:
1468:
1462:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1432:to be found.
1431:
1427:
1423:
1420:
1418:
1413:
1409:
1407:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1374:User:HighKing
1372:
1370:
1367:
1366:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1247:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1207:
1204:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1135:
1134:WP:REFBOMBING
1131:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:WP:REFBOMBING
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:WP:REFBOMBING
1067:
1064:doesn’t meet
1063:
1060:
1059:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
989:
988:
985:
984:
973:
969:
964:
963:
962:
959:
958:
952:
948:
947:
946:
943:
942:
930:
926:
922:
917:
916:
915:
912:
911:
905:
901:
899:
895:
888:
886:
881:
877:
873:
870:
865:
864:
863:
862:
857:
854:
853:
852:
851:
848:
845:
844:
833:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
821:
820:
814:
808:
804:
801:
798:
794:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
762:
761:
760:
757:
754:
753:
742:
738:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
723:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
693:User:HighKing
690:
686:
682:
681:
678:
675:
674:
669:
665:
664:
663:
662:
659:
656:
655:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
627:
624:
620:
616:
609:
606:
595:
592:
591:
586:
582:
578:
577:
576:
571:
567:
563:
558:
554:
551:
550:
543:
540:
539:
527:
524:
523:
522:
519:
518:
512:
509:
505:
501:
497:
496:
492:
487:
483:
479:
478:
477:
476:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
440:
436:
434:
431:
430:
425:
421:
417:
413:
410:
409:
404:
400:
396:
392:
391:
390:
389:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
349:
345:
341:
337:
334:
333:
330:
327:
322:
313:
310:
301:
298:
297:
292:
288:
285:
284:
280:
277:
271:
266:
263:
260:
254:
249:
248:
247:
246:
242:
238:
237:
226:
222:
219:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
176:
173:
172:Find sources:
168:
165:
159:
155:
151:
147:
142:
138:
133:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
112:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
88:
87:
85:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
62:
60:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1470:
1450:
1448:
1434:Newshunter12
1421:
1405:
1398:
1364:
1329:
1312:
1305:Finansavisen
1300:
1296:
1292:
1284:
1237:
1229:
1200:
1181:
1087:
1061:
1021:
1010:
1004:
1000:
996:
975:
971:
956:
933:
928:
920:
909:
897:
893:
891:
883:
875:
869:WP:REFBOMBed
855:
835:
818:
803:WP:CORPDEPTH
777:
744:
683:I added the
672:
646:
629:
602:
589:
552:
530:
516:
507:
438:
428:
411:
352:
335:
306:
295:
286:
234:
232:
220:
214:
206:
199:
193:
187:
181:
171:
77:
57:
55:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1297:independent
1270:Steve Quinn
1261:bludgeoning
1186:Steve Quinn
1005:each source
770:Stalwart111
615:Less Unless
489:(must meet
395:Steve Quinn
375:Steve Quinn
340:Steve Quinn
197:free images
1382:CaliViking
1342:CaliViking
1317:CaliViking
1168:CaliViking
997:individual
894:individual
766:CaliViking
726:CaliViking
638:CaliViking
482:CaliViking
464:CaliViking
371:WP:TOOSOON
1455:talk page
1430:WP:SIGCOV
1412:reasoning
1406:Abductive
1346:NemesisAT
1214:Vanamonde
995:says "An
807:WP:ORGIND
774:WP:ORGIND
685:news link
670:that do?
526:WP:ORGIND
275:Spiderone
258:Spiderone
37:talk page
1457:or in a
1365:HighKing
1338:Eastmain
1289:WP:NCORP
1234:HighKing
1203:Relisted
1153:Grenland
1092:HighKing
1088:Response
1066:WP:NCORP
1011:HighKing
972:critical
957:HighKing
929:multiple
910:HighKing
876:overrule
856:Response
819:HighKing
797:WP:NCORP
741:WP:THREE
701:WP:THREE
697:WP:NCORP
689:Eastmain
673:HighKing
668:WP:THREE
642:Eastmain
605:Relisted
590:HighKing
585:WP:THREE
581:WP:GHITS
570:contribs
562:Eastmain
517:HighKing
486:WP:NCORP
429:HighKing
424:WP:NCORP
357:RomanSpa
309:Relisted
291:WP:NCORP
164:View log
105:glossary
39:or in a
1426:WP:NORG
1285:Comment
1230:Comment
1182:Comment
993:WP:SIRS
553:Comment
203:WP refs
191:scholar
137:protect
132:history
82:New to
1424:Fails
1422:Delete
1399:Delete
1334:WP:HEY
1122:SINTEF
1062:Delete
951:WP:SNG
925:WP:GNG
880:WP:SNG
832:WP:GNG
805:*and*
793:WP:GNG
715:, and
634:WP:HEY
529:works.
412:Delete
336:Delete
325:plicit
287:Delete
175:Google
141:delete
1028:lwart
982:lwart
940:lwart
842:lwart
751:lwart
687:that
653:lwart
537:lwart
491:WP:RS
373:. ---
241:talk
218:JSTOR
179:books
158:views
150:watch
146:links
16:<
1438:talk
1386:talk
1350:talk
1340:and
1332:per
1330:Keep
1321:talk
1274:talk
1238:type
1218:Talk
1190:talk
1172:talk
1120:and
1094:and
1079:talk
921:also
768:and
730:talk
640:and
632:per
630:Keep
619:talk
579:See
566:talk
557:Here
468:talk
458:and
439:Keep
399:talk
379:talk
361:talk
353:Keep
344:talk
211:FENS
185:news
154:logs
128:talk
124:edit
56:brad
52:. –
1090:Hi
1001:all
898:all
892:An
764:Hi
480:Hi
236:DGG
225:TWL
162:– (
1440:)
1388:)
1352:)
1344:.
1323:)
1276:)
1192:)
1136:).
1081:)
1024:St
978:St
936:St
838:St
747:St
711:,
649:St
621:)
568:•
555:.
533:St
470:)
454:,
450:,
426:.
401:)
381:)
363:)
346:)
293:.
272:.
255:.
243:)
205:)
156:|
152:|
148:|
144:|
139:|
135:|
130:|
126:|
1436:(
1414:)
1410:(
1384:(
1348:(
1319:(
1303:(
1272:(
1220:)
1216:(
1188:(
1174:)
1170:(
1098:-
1077:(
1026:★
980:★
938:★
840:★
749:★
732:)
728:(
651:★
617:(
572:)
564:(
535:★
466:(
397:(
377:(
359:(
342:(
320:✗
239:(
229:)
221:·
215:·
207:·
200:·
194:·
188:·
182:·
177:(
169:(
166:)
160:)
122:(
107:)
103:(
58:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.