Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak

1063:: Many of the Delete comments are forgetting several important things. First, these articles have just been created (albeit it is possible by people whom do not know these individuals), so it takes time to transform a stub into a decent article. Second, the people who can best contribute to these articles are other professors and professionals ... however, we have day jobs and can not create well written and researched articles over night. I think we should play wait and see here. The primary difference between engineering professors and many other fields is the nature of the work is different enough. Being an engineer, I have a stronger feel of the worthiness of the engineering professors, but I am willing to say that my initial impression is that this article should stay as well. 3145:, it isn't in opposition to our most basic of inclusion fundamentals that this topic passes. Besides WP:MEMORIAL doesn't even apply here. Read the text of it in full... "Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered."... This article wasn't written about somebody's grandpa that otherwise had no published works about them. That's what WP:MEMORIAL was written for to prevent and doesn't at all apply to Jocelyne Couture-Nowak. It doesn't in any way negate article topics that have been the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources.-- 2061:. Now: if in the next few weeks, some information comes to light about Mme Couture Nowak, and she gets attention from major news media or what have you, then she probably will be notable. Focus pieces (the articles you linked) don't suffice because they are inherently based upon the event, not the individual -- that is to say, take any nonfamous random professor in the world, put them in Couture Nowak's (tragic) position, and she/he'd still get the same attention -- not from the same sources, of course, but they'd get attention -- if she had been from Texas, local Texan papers would be writing articles about own of their own dying in such a public way. Got it? 3463:

French-Canadian identity died in this massacre that the RCMP and the Canadian government are now taking steps to protecting schools in Canada. If you have any doubt of the notability of this person just type her name into Google News or see the "Further Reading" section on the bottom of her page and see the numerous articles just on this one individual... it outsurpasseses all the other victims by far. The media, but most especially the Canadian media saw it fit to have lengthy articles on just this one person. Why not here?

3094:, but it should be deleted because " is a demonstration of the farcical application of our own guidelines . What if somebody wants to keep an article topic that has absolutely no published works about it? Can they say "WP:N is only a guideline, so it should be kept because "? I doubt anyone but the most ardent inclusionists wouldn't stand for that. The fact is this person is the primary subject of multiple published works by reliable sources, whether we like the reason she's the subject of all of those works or not. 3886:, you find the sentence "Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." While the coverage for Couture Nowak may not have been trivial, it is strictly incidental. The Oxford English Dictionary defines incidental as " 1. a. Occurring or liable to occur in fortuitous or subordinate conjunction with something else of which it forms no essential part; casual." This individual's notability is subordinate to the narrative of the tragedy at VTech. 72: 3399:. While this person is not notable for anything except being murdered, we do have articles on 'college football players' noted for 'dying of heatstroke' or gunshot victim. So, even though I think a person like this is not notable, Knowledge (XXG) is already watered down far enough to make this article acceptable. The bottom line: Knowledge (XXG) replaces 'expertism' with 'popularity by the masses.' 1856:"Part of history" does not equal "historic". Bill Cliton's extramarital affair was a major newsitem for months, and it still isn't "historic". I mean, it didn't change much in the history of the world, and I really don't think nearly as many history books wold refer to it as to the Gulf Wars or 9/11. Still, this is NOT the point here. The point is the person the article is about is not notable. 1529:- as much as I feel sorry for Professor Nowak and would like Madame Couture-Nowak to be kept in fond memory, I don't think she is a notable person by merit of her own achievements. She did have the extreme misfortune of being killed in a rather notable incident, but this can be dealt with within the incident's article (i.e. a short bio note for every victim anything relevant can be said about). 4239:) while Librescu performed a widely hailed feat of heroism -- and therefore both merit their own articles; whereas; the other professors were accomplished, or they would be professors, of course; but not notable in their own right to deserve mention outside the VTech article. Founding a school in NS isn't enough; and there are tens of thousands of professors in the world. Thoughts? 1509:, not because she can't be notable in death (Squeakbox) but because she wasn't the focus of the notable event that happened to involve her death. By the standard presented by many keepers, every single person who died in 9/11 is notable to have a Knowledge (XXG) page because they died in a notable event. That's clearly not a good standard to go by. Delete reasons: 1196:

that I believe that this person meets notability but am pretending otherwise for some ulterior motive. My sincere opinion is that nothing presented either here or on the article thus far establishes notability under any of the various criteria, though I more than half-expected a Wikipedian to find at least one clear reference by this point. -

1692:. What she did doesn't make her notable enough, and Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. The fact that she died recently doesn't make her more notable than victims of other massacres. I suggest you create a dedicated Wiki for more "ordinal" people. I also suggest that you refrain from adding "speedy keep" votes since this AfD voting is valid. — 3120:

how many details they dug out (and there weren't that many of them), it was still all about a victim of the shooting, not a notable persona on its own. It has nothing to do with me liking it or not, it just is that way. Or would you be willing to prove she was ACTUALLY notable (WP criteria aside) for anything else than her tragic death?

1951:

mentioning the person). Secondly, those kind of articles qualify as "obituaries" in my book, even if they aren't in the strictest sense. Those articles have only been created written because the person was killed in a highly-publicized incident, not because the person was notable herself, and do not assert her notability in any way.

2615:. "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." Where this appears to conflict with "not a memorial", the primary criterion takes priority. She is now the multiple non-trivial published works, regardless of whether she was before. -- 4223:. People are coming to Knowledge (XXG) to search for her name specifically; clearly she's notable. She founded a school in Nova Scotia and acted heroically to protect her VT students. Fellow VT faculty victim Granata didn't found anything yet his entry isn't up for deletion. I'm tempted to call this misogyny. -- 4042:. Youngamerican makes a good argument although the way he says it sounds almost like a deliberate caricature, but the basic idea holds true. BanyanTree, Rbelln, Nyttend and María also make good points. It appears that even the people advocating keeping acknowledge at this point that the article does not meet 4062:

are different because her death led directly to knew laws and regulations named after her. I strongly doubt that there will be any Couture-Nowak law made after this. This woman died tragically, and maybe even would have become a notable academic in her field if she had survived. However, she does not

2968:

I love teachers just as much as anyone and I really feel terrible for her and her family. But there cannot be articles for all the victims and there can't be articles for all teachers. She didn't seem to be a full professor and didn't have any published works. It's been a day and anyone could have

2644:

From the above comments i realize that people who want to delete this are cynical. But seriously, WP guidelines say, WP is not the place to honor people who have recently died. The subject's notability should have been claimed BEFORE her death - OR - something remarkable about her should have occured

1990:

I believe it is plain obvious media only mentioned her because she was a victim of the shooting and information on her proved relatively easy to gather, while the news outlets needed to somehow fill the news slots assigned to this topic with some "new" info. Rather than try to bend the WP policies to

1261:

was apparently effectively deleted as a separate article, but the wrongness of what we were doing must not yet have been realized. If the public does not make the individuals notable, there will be time to delete them. I don't thing that's what will happen. WP is not primarily a memorial, but it some

551:

How can you be rude enough to claim that this article, about an innocent woman murdered by a violent, viscious killer during the worst school massacre the United States had ever seen, is not notable? I am Canadian, and so is she, and I feel that she deserves her own little place, after being murdered

3905:

Of course the newsitems go beyond her being killed, as the description of that fact would hardly exceed the length of one sentence, but the fact is that, as of now, she is only of interest to the media due to her recent killing. If reports on her would appear in the media over a longer span of time,

3676:

where Note 3 says "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles about an occurrence, does not always constitute independent works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article

3286:

page. Though I disagree with most of the proposed deletions of the prod-happy people who have proposed deletion on just about everything else having to do with the shootings outside the main article itself, in this case I find that unlike three other profs who died there who have their own articles,

2345:

For the love of God, she's one of only a few faculty victims in a histori shooting, has some notability for professional achievements, and because of the media coverage, people WILL want to learn more about her for at least the time being. Y'all shouldn't be so quick to delete! We must always err on

2074:

for a reason. We can't just arbitrarily apply our core guidelines to how we see fit. To say "Yes, she's notable and passes our guidelines, but I don't think the reason she passes our guildelines is suffeiciant" completely negates the existance of our core guidelines. If she was the primary subject

1940:

You had charged the sources as being "are either listings of people killed in the shooting" and you seem to conceded that that was an incorrect statement. And these aren't even obituaries. The are articles by reporters and editors of major news outlets writing about this person as primary stories,

1819:

I am not in favor of keeping any of those two you mentioned either, feel free to AfD them and I will support you. As concerns "being involved in a historic event" (btw, this event is rather moving and tragic, but I don't think it qualifies as historic), I do not think it is enough to become notable.

1458:

Renominate for deletion in six months. Lets just see how this whole incident pans out. I recommend creating an article on her husband, who does meet WP:PROF and attaching a merge tag to this article. A merge tag does not need to be acted upon quickly. Schools are notable, serious researchers are

1195:

Please add these published works to the article. The article currently has two links, the main subject of which is the shootings, but which mention this person. These are clearly not "features", as mentioned in "Multiple features in credible news media". I take strong exception to your implication

4142:

a vote, but a discussion. The decision would be made based on WP policies and guidelines and not personal convitions of whether the person in question is "worthy" or anything. The controversy here ensues as to the interpretation of policies and guidelines, so it would be good to get acquainted with

1403:

Because keeping it would set a precedent for the inclusion of all sorts of trivial articles on tragic victims, which cumulatively will degrade the quality and credibility of Knowledge (XXG). Yes, we don't have the limitations of a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean we can start adding things

865:

Sadly, a lot of people here are lazy, so they only write about things when there are a bunch of sources within easy arm's reach. That kind of thing tends to happen when people die (as ten thousand newspapers run obituaries), so a lot of bio articles here get written right after the subject's death.

4186:

her violent death in a well-documented shooting add up and influence each other so that her article is justified. This is my opinion, and I have expressed it in just one sentence: "worthy of inclusion to all intents and purposes". This, I believe, does not express any inability or unwillingness to

3742:

She appears to barely meet the primary notability criterion, namely that she is the subject of multiple independently published articles. I should mention this is a very weak keep, however, since the references do not appear to cover much of a time span. References should appear over more than a

3119:

and all notability guidelines are, well, guidelines, and thus are somehow less "powerful" than WP policies, if you prefer to go legal about it. But in my understanding such conflicts should be resolved using common sense. It is fairly obvious why the media wrote about Mme Couture-Nowak - no matter

2683:

I loathe drawing such comparisons, but with all due respect, the death of Amanda Dowler and subsequent investigations give her a substantially better claim to notability than our subject here. Her death was moving and tragic, but at the end of the day there isn't much more to say about it that she

2627:

Couture-Nowak is the object of several articles in credible news media (which primarily reference her, not the shooting). Therefore she is notable within Knowledge (XXG)'s meaning of notability and is independently notable of the shooting event. Furthermore, were we to merge all her biographical

1256:

She is almost certainly not notable as an academic scholar. Probably notable as a university teacher being killed on campus. (This is not a frequent occurrence, regardless of circumstances) In any case, certainly notable because of the circumstances. Yes, I think we will have articles on each. The

456:

unless it is shown that the subject meets inclusion criteria, which seems more and more unlikely. Knowledge (XXG) is by nature a passionless, emotionless, cold, disintersted reference tool and, as much as the shootings sicken us all, we need to keep the good of the project in mind here and not let

3310:

criteria for notability (which of course are just a guideline anyway, not a policy, & currently much disputed), I have decided to change my vote back to keep. Regardless of how "notable" she was by those criteria prior to her death, the circumstances of her death may render her notable in a

2125:

The impeachment is, the affair not so, I guess. I mean, if we didn't know anything about the whereabouts of Miss Lewinsky and the kinky details of whatever happened in the Oval Room, we could still study the legal case. I do like this discussion, but it doesn't change the fact that the article is

1736:

by and large, she was a French instructor at a higher education institution, and with all due respect to all the hard-working French teachers in the world, this hardly even makes her an academic. You would have never heard of her unless you had classes with her or worked for Virgina Tech, or knew

988:

Unlike with the other professors, I've not seen anything saying that she was the writer of lots of impressive papers, or the author of any impressive books, or the recipient of any impressive awards. I think some of my college professors are really amazing, but that doesn't necessarily mean that

4208:

I see what you say. For me, the acid test (or maybe that's too strong a phrase), or the big factor, is if I when I read an article, there's a sort of center or call it hook, to the article, which makes one go "Ah yes, that's why it's here." When I read the present subject's entry, I see a lot of

3836:

Okay - I'm pretty new to this (and excited to learn and be a part of the wikipedia community), so I don't know all the ins and outs of what would be 'notable' enough and such - When I read "instrumental in establishing", it seems a bit more than just "participating"..?.. The 'courageous actions'

2400:

The issue seems emotionally charged only on the "keepers" side. I don't see much emotions in the, rather valid, arguments for deletion based on WP policies. If WP:PROF does not apply (and the article doesn't meet it anyway), then it has been already established that the person in question is not

1471:

If she hadn't died this would have been prod'd without objection. Thousands of people are murdered every day and I can't see what makes her any more noteworthy than any other victim. If any sources that aren't obituaries - particualrly sources created when she was still alive - can be found then

3167:

In my mind, Knowledge (XXG) has as its main strength the fact that it is able to quickly adapt to the proliferation of information that is available in the "information age". I don't see the rush to delete a person who sadly passed away in a highly topical event. To my mind, this makes the page

2025:

of the tragedy. This is akin to someone doing a piece about what X student's personal experience was during the incident -- that random student does not then deserve her own page. To put it another way, the stories about Ms Nowak are not about her so much as they are about further reporting the

4173:

Thank God Knowledge (XXG) policy is vague on the notability criterion. If it were not, there wouldn't have been any need, or place, for the above discussion. While it's true that Jocelyne Couture-Nowak probably wouldn't have her own article today if she hadn't been killed, her death is not the

2812:

Assuming people-articles need to be assessed by notability REGARDLESS of death, and that death MAY make one notable REGARDLESS of other notability tests, I believe that this article should be kept for now, and then the community should consider MERGING people of lesser notability into the main

1950:

It was not an incorrect statement. I was referring to "nontrivial works" mentioning Jocelyne Couture-Novak in general, not whatever is linked from the article. Many of those do only mention the subject of the article listing the victims (even though, in strict sense, those are nontrivial works

3432:- No, we simply haven't got around to deleting every non-notable person from the site. But please do place links to non-notable people noted only for their death on my talk page and i will make sure i put them up for deletion. Policy, not mass stupidity is the usual choice for these things. -- 2862:

This article was created as a reaction to the VT shootings, the history itself says created from "news sources" unreliable at best, there's not even a published date of birth for this person!? Shabby original research at best, this article isn't fair in doing the subject justice in such close

1169:

along with the other professor articles. If these people hadn't been involved with the Virginia Tech shooting, there would never have been articles. The primary basis thus seems to be about their involvement with the shooting, and what was that involvement? Being a victim? This can be easily

3633:

Unfortunately, our notability policy says that 'Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance".' and '"A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the

3462:

This person is of great significance because of her Canadian identity. This is one of the main things that links Canada to the Virginia Tech massacre. I think that many Canadians have been very involved with following this event because of her. It is precisely because this woman with a proud

3381:

She is not notable, being murdered does not make you notable when you were one of many victims. She definetly doesnt fulfill PROF, she has no achievements at all. Also, Knowledge (XXG) is permement we do not add something becasue it is kinda somewhat related to the news then delete it later.

1630:

If the École acadienne de Truro meets standards for notability, then (from what I read in the article under consideration) she should be mentioned there when that school's article is expanded from a stub to a full article. Otherwise, let her memorial be elsewhere. Does (or should) every

2052:

I fully accept that she is the subject of the articles you linked above. I also accept that they are about her and her life. Finally, let me say I like her and her article as such. But the simple fact is the articles were written as a result of her death. Other murder victims have their own

1930:

Conversely, please read the entirety of my comments before replying. Those are exactly the kind of obituary-like pieces I was referring to. Some of them are also rather embarassing examples of low-quality journalism, but that's another thing and not that relevant. Anyway, they do not assure

322:

for now. In the aftermath of the shootings, it is difficult to judge whether her death alone confers sufficient notability; it does, however, confer enough noteworthiness such that we should wait on deletion, and give research into her credentials time to progress. Premature AfD, under the

1089:

This victim is noteworthy as being the only Canadian and Québecoise victim of this crime. The article will take shape in coming days and weeks. Various victims of other notorious incidents have been individually recognized (Columbine, et al) and this victim should be remembered as well.

3814:- isn't this part enough? "was instrumental in establishing the École acadienne de Truro, the area's first French language public school under the Conseil scolaire acadien provincial." to have her considered notable, and then added to her courageous actions during recent events? 2381:

WP:PROF does NOT apply here as this professor's notability is not contingent on acadamic standing. Re-evaluate again later. I believe she is notable as the victim of the worst school shooting in US History. This issue is too emotionally charged right now to be fairly evaluated.

4187:

change my mind. Rather, it expresses what I think about this matter at the moment. The "You have your opinion, I have mine" refers to the preceding sentence, i.e. to whether I'm familiar with Knowledge (XXG) policies or not: PrinceGloria suggests I'm not, whereas I think I am.

932:

to delete these pages. Time needs to be given to see if they can be improved into a good article. The article itself is off to a good start, as it mentions her role in founding a notable school. So it's likely the article will turn out well. If not, it can be nominated later.

3895:

The multiple non-trivial published works about this person are all focused on her life and work, not an "incident". An incident inspired the reliable sources to write about this person, but that in no way makes the content of all the published works about her "incidental."

2813:

incident's article, or make another article titled "victims of virginia tech massacre". Notable professors should keep their article. Furthermore, I'd like to add that if space is not the issue, then we should keep ALL articles as is, as long as they are properly written.

2835:

Every deceased person deserves to be remembered, but they don't all get an article in this encylopedia. They have to pass certain notability standards. My uncle Phil and my childhood dog, Spot, both also deserve to be remembered, but they're not getting articles here.

1306:

That's seems like an arbitrary POV. If the topic is the primary subject of multiple published works, for whatever reason, it passes even our most strict guidelines. I don't know about others, but I personally am not claiming the person is "notable" for moral reasons.

2156:. The only reason why an article was created for her was due to her untimely death in a horrible tragedy, and yet we do not have articles for the other victims -- because of notability issues. Just because she was an instructor does not make her notable; she fails 3589:

states very clearly A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This person has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. And the person passes

2565:

and an inability to delete them despite years going by without a mention of them, and no work done on the article except in the news-blast aftermath of an incident, basically because someone thinks that it's OK to keep them if they don't meet guidelines. What we

855:

Apologies, allow me to rephrase. It is a great coincidence that despite no one feeling her improtant enough to create an article before her death, they suddenly feel it neccesary to make one, and (accidently i am sure) forget to include any of her achievements.

766:, because she is the victim of the WORST campus shooting in U.S. history and as a teacher has influenced many students and as a professor has influenced her field as well. The article lists other noteworthy professional achievements beyond her tragic death. -- 594:

not because she was killed in a mass killing. I just don't want people to retroactively start making articles for all the 9/11 victims just since rationales like the one here would justify an article for every single Canadian killed by someone they didn't know.

1601:

the article does not meet the criteria "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject", and per

2470:

Not really. If an article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, it should be deleted, and not kept in anticipation of once meeting them. If that approach was widely instilled, the inclusion guidelines would effectively become totally ineffective ;)

1799:- How is this not suited for an encyclopedia? It's a person that was involved in an historic event, in more ways then one. I've seen pages on here devoted to total nonsense. Internet memes, old pranks, web sites, barely known companies... surely if 910:

I'll second, as clearly people aren't thinking along notability guidelines right now. It was rather silly of me to think that they would. I'll even close it as "no consensus" if someone thirds this motion, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. -

4111:

Encyclopedia articles are not dispensed as means of recognition. I actually believe the rather laughable attempts of purporting exceptional qualities to Mme Couture-Nowak are in fact almost insulting her as a person killed in such circumstances...

2684:

was shot by a psychically unstable man among many other victims that day, while no other element of her biography makes her notable in any way. I must say I really find it emotionally revolting to write about a recently deceased person that way...

1896:

All those "nontrivial works" are either listings of people killed in the shooting or obituaries. She would've probably never appeared in the media given her achievements that we know of if not for her tragic death. It doesn't make her notable.

2969:

added more research at this point. Perhaps she could have mention in her husband's article; he seems to meet notability standards. She was notable as a very nice French teacher, but she is not notable for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG). --

585:

Well the user made no such implication, the user just said give the person "her own little place" because of "being murdered by someone she never even knew." The user never said anything like what you are suggesting. I'm okay with

3759:

but that doesn't mean we should have an article about every single victim. So as a general rule just because a particular crime receives massive international attention doesn't mean that every single victim of the crime needs a

1289:, we're not disrespecting this woman by not giving her her own article. It's a simple technical question, that, barring some extra substantive attention given to a high-profile murder victim, they do not deserve their own entry. 4101:

for all of the many compelling and convincing reasons given above. This accomplished instructor, one of only a few professors killed in a historically and news-worthy disaster definitely merits encylopedic attention as well.

1037:

that she never had her own faculty page. While the article and several media sources describe her as a "French professor", the discrepancies highlight doubt as to if she had a doctorate. It is thus quite difficult to apply

3185:

clearly states that notability does not change with time, so if the person is not notable, she will not be - unless we will learn of something that would make her notable, in which case an article can of course be created.

1964:

to the reasons the person is notable. If tyou think that major publications choosing to write multiple published works primarily about the person, (obituary or not) means the person is not "notable," then that's your POV.

3073:(to some extent) here. What you need to do is just use common sense to figure out what would the spirit of the regulations in question suggest. Perhaps this whole discussion signifies the need for a slight alteration of 395:

to be included. A lot of the "keep" votes are very emotional but are not based on wiki policy. It is more than likely that this lady will become notable in the future, however, we need a little perspective on the recent

2673:

being one of them, and these articles have been here months and years. So how is this an abuse of WP when notability established by the nature of death has so much precedent here (at least hundreds of articles),

900:

Given that people are still really worked up about the tragedy, and that the article has been in existence for less than 24 hours, why not close this temporarily and re-assess once things have stabilized a bit?

2702:

For sure, but they only wrote about here BECAUSE she was one of the persons shot, and perhaps because they could gather some information easily. There isn't anything of note about her in any of those articles.

3181:- well, one of Knowledge (XXG)'s unwritten features is the ability to filter the overabundance of infotrash typical for the information age and retain only what is really valuable. As to your last sentence, 3796:

While the event was notable, the person isn't on her own. If we end up with articles about multiple victims, I'd have no objection into merging into a List of VT Victims article if there isn't one already.

3689:

loads of info here that is published and not suitble in other articles, therefore it is notable as an article on its own. There is also minimal repitition to other articles (good work to the contributers).

971: 3647:

deleted. Like many of the VT victims, he hasn't really done anything notable himself, but he attracted independent media attention anyway for reasons beyond his control (i.e. the identity of his father).

834:

If she was notable enough for inclusion before she died, i am sure she would have been added before now. Her death means nothing to an encyclopedia, she helps not to increase the sum of human knowledge.

277:

I don't see the possibility of a law being made because of this one person's death. Sarah Payne's unique murder and the creation of her eponymous law made her notable not the fact that she was murdered.

3672:, that an event may be newsworthy without being a suitabe topic for an encyclopedia. When the references all are related to a single news event their affirmation of notability is questionable. See also 3827:

Participating in the establishment of a public school? No, not enough. And "courageous actions"? She was gunned down and there is no basis for saying that she saved anyone. Sorry, she is just a victim.

3664:

She sounds like a fine person, and her death was tragic. The same applies to thousands of people who are murdered every year, but Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial book. She does not appear to satisfy

1324:

the recent events. --- Ironically the perpetrator of the massacre is notable for his act, because, macabre as it is to say it, that ended up being his life's work. I feel like reading Schöpenhauer ...

3875:

keep it, change it, take the facts of her life accomplishments and write a good article about the lady who started a french school in what was once Acadia and is now Nova Scotia. look at it closely

3022:. Not otherwise notable aside from how she died. As Gloriamarie states, we cannot have articles for all the victims simply because of the manner in which they were killed - there has to have been 3006:, clearly meets the notability standard due to press coverage. Possibly merge onto a consolidated victims page in the future, if such a page would not be excessively long (I suspect it might be). 1785:- In some people's opinions, there has been too much rush to create new articles rather than building out existing articles to the point where the content warrants separation to a new article. -- 4164:

Your above comment is the exact antithesis of an actual discussion. It presumes an inability and unwillingness to either exchange ideas or consider changing your mind. It is not at all helpful.

1991:

serve a rather doubtful cause, I'd rather we employed some common sense here. That said, lex specialis derogat legi generali and I have just been reminded a relevant former exist in the form of

4050:. However, longstanding precedent is that in general victims of tragedies whose lives are reported in detail merely due to their being victims of horrific events does not count for purposes of 3743:

brief span of time to ensure true independence among the sources and that the article isn't simply a bit of localized zeitgeist on a particular subject. By the way, note that deleting this

2570:

is a prohibition or moratorium on creating these types of articles in the first place within hours of an event - if time elapses and the subject is still relevant, that's a different story.

1170:

mentioned in the main Virginia Tech shootings article, even if a short paragraph would be needed to describe the person's actions during this event (which may or may not be the case here).

953:, has remained notable or commonly remembered. For the 4/16 shootings, it may be Jocelyne Couture-Nowak who is remembered, or it may be someone else. It's too soon to delete this article. 693:

What? That guy is the president of Honduras. Are you suggesting we should preemptively make articles for all the victims just in case one of them ends up being the president of a country?

1906:

Please read the sources before commenting on them. All of these non-trivial published works are primarily about Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, not "listings" or about any of the other victims.

1320:-- and they had a sort of "local focus" tone, as if meant for local sections of newspapers -- I just don't think that it's enough for notability -- we would have to give her that status 1869:

is extremely historic that will likely be studied by history students as long as the US exists. You were the one who brought up the topic of the shootings being "historic" or not. --

1753:

because she simply was not notable enough in the field. There are plenty of French professors (it appears she was only a lecturer, possibly without even a doctorate) who clearly meet

1631:

individual victim of Columbine have his or her own page? Does (or should) every VT victim have his or her own page? Does (or should) every victim of 9/11 have his or her own page?

79: 4058:

as well as many precedents set by among other things, the myriad of Sept 11 AfDs and many articles about individuals who have died in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Cases like

2331:. Notability has to be established beyond being a victim. Those two are full professors which make them more likely to have some scholarly activities establishing notability. -- 3634:

subject."' By the literal wording of the policy, she's in fact notable, despite not being famous or important, because there are articles about her. The policy is just broken.

2414:: "A notable topic has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject." This person adhears to the letter of WP:N. -- 4152:

You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's leave it at that. I'm not going to teach you about Knowledge (XXG) policies, and you are certainly not going to teach me about them.

230: 1446:. Also, Payne was the only victim, therefore we don't have the "no group" issues that we have with the Vtech incident. (why do I feel like the admissions dept of some club?) 421:

for the time being, with no prejudice against or precedent set for a future RfA once everyhting sorts itself out. As for crystal ballism, I'm going to invoke a rare (for me)

237:

A French language instructor killed in the Virginia Tech shooting. Much of the article lingers on the status of her husband, who, unlike Mrs. Couture-Nowak, appears to meet

3065:

Actually, it does matter very much. Wiki policies are written as guidelines, and not immutable laws - it is rather frequent that two policies would be in conflict, such as

1123:, who was also a victim, it is a joke. I know it's not a competition and both article could be included, but this article doesn't meet notability, IMO. WP:NOT a memorial. - 866:

Like I said below, I don't have an opinion on Couture-Nowak's notability yet, but to make a determination purely on the basis of when the article was created is crazy. -

339:, wiki is not a crystal ball - if you really believe your argument then that article should be deleted and then recreated if/when notability is proven at a later date.-- 2087:

our core guidelines and apply them arbitrarily, ie: "She passes WP:N and WP:BIO only because of her death", then its an example of how frivolous our guidelines are. --

1350: 3784:. The argument that "Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial" doesn't hold water in this case as it makes a clear exception for people who meet the notability criterion. -- 989:

they're notable, and even if she were amazingly good she's not thereby made noteworthy. And no, the cause of her death doesn't make her inherently notable either.

3751:. So even if this article is deleted that doesn't prevent the important facts of the article from appearing in Knowledge (XXG). Finally note that just because an 425:

citation. Hell, I'm liable to argue for deletion in a week or so when there will be a greater sobriety among the community, but I would like to wait 'til that time.

3168:

notable. Later, after the dust has settled, notability can be revisited and it can be put up for deletion again like other minor participants in historic events.

945:. We don't know if the average person will, after the passage of time, remember any the victims, but sometimes one person stands out. For example, with the 1986 4209:

details and bio notes, and I feel very much for the woman, but her reason for separate inclusion, the VTech incident, to me reads a footnote more than anything.

2657:

Those are the wisest words written here. That said, I tend to believe at least some of the people aredntly advocating keeping are being pretty cynical in fact.

4075:- she nobly defended her students; had she been a soldier she would have been awarded a medal. What is not notable about such a death in such circumstances? -- 3077:, but it doesn't change the fact that the person in question became of interest to the media solely because her tragic death, which does not make her notable. 2449:

I hope that these "let's keep it and see how it pans out" opinions are regarded as invalid by the administrator, as they don't state a valid policy reasoning.

3865:

After her death, her accomplishments have received sufficient attention to make her notable enough. These will be remembered on a scale worthy of an entry.

1820:

Can you name all the people who were together in the bunker with Adolf Hitler in his last days, or how about an article for every passenger of the Titanic?

369:

on Knowledge (XXG). We can't know whether someone will be notable or not. But we can't give people entries on the expectation (here, unfounded) that they

3382:

Something active is not also historically important. This is a blemish on the time line and i pray we don't become pathetic enough to consider it more --

3247:; it obviously wasn't *meant* to be covered by the notability policy, and we shouldn't treat it as if is regardless of what the literal wording demands. 1913: 203: 198: 3515:. It is the massacre that is notable and is attracting all of the attention, not her. There is no evidence that she is notable outside the massacre.-- 2004:

It doesn't matter if you don't like the reasons they wrote about her (far more than "mentions" you claim), but the fact is multiple media outlets did.

1093: 3283: 207: 3311:

manner beyond simple memorialization. Some recent coverage has indicated that her actions when her class was under attack are also worthy of note. --

2070:

I "got" that the multiple ariticles about her were inspired by her death. But that's just it, they're still written about her. We have the clause

1293:'s entry may have been prompted by the attention he sadly receives now, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't have gotten an entry anyway, along with 2985:. Her only notability was her death and that can be mentioned elsewhere, like her husband's page or the victims page. Death is not a criterion of 190: 1931:

notability, as they only refer to some tidbits of Mme Couture-Nowak's bio a journalist could dig out to illustrate the "news" on her passing by.

3780:

this article is deleted, I ask that we all be honest with ourselves and recognise that deletion in this case is a rather clear case of invoking

1316:

That your for posting the link to the articles -- however, they were all written by virtue of her inclusion in the tragedy, and not because of

2716:

wrote about her doesn't matter, but the fact is reliable sources did write mulitple stories about her, whether you like why they did or not.--

2549:(and belive me, deletionists will pounce hard), I'll point to this AfD as an example of the arbitrary relevancy of our inclusion guidelines.-- 1438:, who probably should be in Knowledge (XXG). Payne's was a high-profile murder that inspired an important law, and other laws indirectly like 702:

Well exactly (which is where I am, BTW) so being a graduate engineer says nothing about notability. IMO its her death that makes her notable,

2365: 2021:

The stories you cite above do take Ms Couture-Nowak as a subject, but those aren't sufficient criteria. They are focusing on her as a way of

3479:

Of all the comments here that say "keep" for the wrong reasons, this is probably the worst one. "But she's Canadian" doens't count IMHO :-/

2850:- very non-notable - she's just a teacher! Just because she was killed in a school shooing does not deem her notable enough for an article. 2632:

article, this would not add to readers' understanding of the shooting. Keeping them here adds to readers' understanding of Couture-Nowak.

1383:

per Squeakbox, Xoloz and Que-Can. I challenge all who voted otherwise to demonstrate how the world benefits from our deleting this article.

1135:- no assertion of notability outside of getting shot. A murder victim does not a notable person make. Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. -- 3677:

from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works." Her part in the events on Norris that day should be included in the main article.

1581:

in the abstract as though one day someone comes along and awards you a certificate of notability, this article should be a speedy keep per

794:

as per the clear concensus in this debate. Verifiable information continues to pour in every hour and this is already within the bounds of

640:

Not all the victims of this tragedy were either. The only one I've heard the most about is the Holocaust survivor because of his heroism.

88: 4000:

Insufficient notability. I almost regret I wasn't there to be killed and hence become notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia.--

3960: 2887: 2879: 2208: 2178: 1119:- not notable enough professor. Doesn't seem to have won any prestigious awards, publications not particularly impressive. Compared to 3968: 2946: 2895: 2369: 2053:

individual pages, but in such cases they were made prominent (posthumously) by copious media attention for one reason or another. Cf.,

746: 118: 3837:

part, I was going from what I read in the current article about her trying to save her students and losing her life in the process...

2938: 2930: 2043:

as for the reasons of her being the subject of all those articles is not a proper reason to ingnore our strict inclusion criteria. --

1337:. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with a "local focus" (I'm assuming you mean "local" as referring to the entire provinces of 17: 2597: 1654: 1141: 946: 782:. Just being the victim of a crime does not make her notable. Please set emotions aside, this is an encylopedia not an obituary. 2267:

not notable. The main article on the shootings should cover it; there will be plenty of victim memorials in appropriate places.

261:

Notability given the events of yesterday. You clearly dont have to be notable before being murdered to be notable afterwards, eg

4251:

I agree the misogyny claim is unfounded, but Librescu is not being included because of claims of heroism. He meets and exceeds

742: 3418: 3026:

prior to the death (although not in all cases, but this isn't really a special case), and there doesn't seem to be any. We are

2782:. This is a search for consensus regarding policy. If you have a particular perspective, please elucidate it with a rationale. 2693:

Many media outlets wrote much more about here than being shot. In fact, they wrote many full articles primarily about her. --

1800: 2388: 2039:. They are about her and her life, not at all akin to "X student's personal experiance was during the incident". Employing 1224:

Thank you. Your addition of these links to the article is the most constructive thing that's happened so far in this AFD. -

1146: 1105: 846:

We don't have articles for more than half the heads of state from 150 years ago. Are they suddenly not notable now, either? -

1349:). Some users attempting to ignore or block out content of entire regions is exacly why Knowledge (XXG)'s policy is to 1186:

the reason for the subject's "notablity", doesn't change the fact it passes our increasingly strict inclusion standards. --

104: 3935:, this is not the place for all victims from all killings or attacks around the world and time will show if she will pass 1394: 4235:

Don't play the misogyny card just yet; I think the thinking is that Granata has been called prominent in his field, (eg,

1865:

The deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history is historic. If you don't think so, that's your opinion too. And the

1236:

No prob. I cam acrorss this AfD many hours after I read two of these articles. Was surprised nobody mentioned them. --

1005:. In fact, an MLA Bibliography search reveals not a single article or book under any version of her name I can find. -- 4276: 1941:

not on the obituaries pages and certainly not just a blurb submitted by family members on the back obituaries page. --

36: 4259: 4243: 4227: 4213: 4194: 4168: 4159: 4147: 4133: 4116: 4106: 4091: 4079: 4067: 4030: 4021: 4004: 3986: 3955: 3943: 3919: 3910: 3900: 3890: 3869: 3857: 3841: 3831: 3818: 3806: 3788: 3768: 3733: 3721: 3709: 3697: 3681: 3652: 3638: 3626: 3610: 3576: 3552: 3536: 3519: 3503: 3483: 3467: 3454: 3436: 3424: 3386: 3373: 3357: 3345: 3329: 3315: 3297: 3267: 3251: 3227: 3211: 3190: 3172: 3149: 3124: 3102: 3081: 3060: 3047: 3010: 2998: 2973: 2960: 2909: 2854: 2840: 2827: 2804: 2786: 2773: 2761: 2729: 2720: 2707: 2697: 2688: 2678: 2661: 2649: 2636: 2619: 2607: 2574: 2553: 2531: 2514: 2495: 2475: 2465: 2453: 2435: 2418: 2405: 2392: 2350: 2335: 2319: 2299: 2287: 2271: 2259: 2243: 2222: 2185: 2130: 2091: 2065: 2047: 2030: 2016: 1999: 1985: 1955: 1945: 1935: 1925: 1901: 1891: 1882: 1873: 1866: 1860: 1851: 1842: 1833: 1824: 1811: 1789: 1777: 1761: 1741: 1724: 1708: 1696: 1680: 1622: 1610: 1569: 1566: 1557: 1533: 1521: 1501: 1463: 1450: 1426: 1408: 1398: 1375: 1357: 1328: 1311: 1301: 1268: 1240: 1231: 1219: 1203: 1190: 1174: 1161: 1149: 1127: 1109: 1081: 1067: 1049: 1034: 1013: 993: 980: 957: 937: 918: 905: 895: 870: 860: 850: 839: 826: 802: 786: 770: 756: 706: 697: 688: 675: 666: 653: 644: 635: 626: 617: 608: 599: 580: 568: 556: 543: 527: 511: 499: 479: 443: 400: 381: 360: 343: 327: 314: 298: 282: 269: 252: 194: 55: 1907: 1211: 741:

to be disassociated from the Wikimedia Foundation and instead concentrate on how this article meets or does not meet

242: 3776:

per Dugwiki. Much of the coverage is not just about her in relation to the massacre, but about her life in general.

2863:

relation and association to the VT shootings. This person can and will be remembered without the help of wikipedia.

3756: 77:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

3369:. Wayyyy too early to delete someone who is part of an active and historically important news story as well. -- 150: 4275:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3649: 2361: 1847:

Any event both record-breaking and covered by the media for almost over 24 hours qualifies as part of history.

1136: 902: 867: 847: 391:, I am sure she was a lovely woman and deserves to be remembered but wiki is not a memorial we need to satisfy 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2040: 1961: 1183: 4236: 3964: 2152:- All sentimentality put aside, this individual does not warrent an article because of lack of notability by 3620:. Completely agree with the users directly above me. Fails notability. Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. -- 2942: 2926: 2891: 2875: 2204: 2172: 1704:

Per above, nominate for deletion in 3-6 months if nothing else about this woman pans out to make her famous.

474: 438: 4076: 3130: 3087: 2918: 2867: 2546: 2520: 2196: 1642: 1491: 613:

Then why not articles for all the victims of 9/11, a clearly more pivotal event and more noteworthy event?

134: 108: 3838: 3815: 3512: 3019: 2982: 2797: 2629: 2357: 2347: 1887:

If the person is the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works like this person is, we do.--

1689: 1673: 1228: 1200: 1046: 915: 767: 753: 249: 186: 61: 4009:

WP:PROF doens't apply as this person's "notability" is not based on academic stature. The person passes

2824: 2251:, not notable. Even pushing for a school to be opened, by a provincial agency, is not real notability. -- 93: 3952: 3718: 3370: 2871: 2590: 1650: 1277: 890: 4055: 3354: 3138: 3112: 3066: 2922: 2428: 1473: 3854: 3464: 1646: 1479: 507:

per SqueakBox. The article will improve as more information becomes available over the next few days.

4087:

Um what? If she were a soldier we wouldn't have an article about her so I fail to follow your logic.

3500: 2332: 1978: 1786: 1720:

credentials and her highly publicised death covered by the media internationally make her notable. —

1593:

I don't think any single person will come along and say "Damn! Why was this article included?!", per

1225: 1197: 1043: 912: 783: 750: 496: 246: 3669: 2956:

as per many arguments stated above, as been only known as because she was a victim of the shooting--

4103: 3529: 3042: 2757: 1158: 1097: 885: 737:

applies and that notability must be established? Let's not reenact the entire discussion that led

540: 3803: 2084: 1878:

Many events are historical, and yet we don't have articles on every single person involved in it.

659: 3940: 3747:

doesn't mean the pertinent material on her can't be merged into an appropriate article about the

3533: 2390: 2256: 2200: 2166: 1639:; rather, they are grouped together as short mentions in an article about the tragedy as a whole. 1518: 1101: 462: 426: 294:

but as you commented I add it here, not as notable as Sarah Payne but notable enough to be here,

290:

No she's not that good an example but i couldnt think of anyone els. I was going to change it to

140: 71: 2519:

WP:PROF doens't apply here as the person doesn't have an article due to academic acheivements.

1590: 1262:

cases, its articles do serve very appropriately as a memorial for they record the public view.,

1078: 458: 3643:

This is a good point. I ran up against a similar problem a few months ago while trying to have

2037:

her being the primary subject of multiple non-trival published works is most certainly criteria

576:

Yesterday? and if they were notable in life or death they should be here, and if not then not,

4144: 4113: 3983: 3907: 3906:

I guess it would make a better claim for notability. As of now, the coverage is "incidental".

3785: 3635: 3248: 3187: 3121: 3078: 2995: 2851: 2726: 2704: 2685: 2658: 2472: 2432: 2402: 2127: 1996: 1952: 1932: 1898: 1857: 1839: 1821: 1738: 1530: 1388: 1372: 1010: 950: 823: 604:

I am not sure she meets PROF but I would argue the events of yesterday have made her notable,

29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

4252: 4043: 4017:

as being the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works by reliable sources. --

3996: 3932: 3665: 3595: 3569: 3545: 3496: 3447: 3366: 3338: 3052:

It doesn't matter why she's notable, but the fact is she is notable and passes the letter of

2986: 2507: 2488: 2328: 2280: 2231: 2157: 1754: 1750: 1733: 1717: 1665: 1514: 1039: 811: 795: 779: 591: 238: 3755:

is notable doesn't mean that everyone involved is notable. Thousands of people died in the

3621: 3264: 2970: 2583: 1607: 1460: 1405: 1171: 934: 524: 397: 340: 49: 4051: 4047: 4014: 3883: 3781: 3599: 3591: 3565: 3307: 3288: 3244: 3220: 3142: 3134: 3116: 3108: 3074: 3070: 3035: 3027: 3023: 2524: 2503: 2424: 2080: 1992: 1918: 1838:

That's a matter of opinion, but the more important issue here was outside the parentheses.

1603: 1594: 1419: 1075: 815: 734: 422: 4240: 4224: 4210: 3916: 3887: 3516: 3433: 3383: 3205: 2783: 2450: 2296: 2284: 2062: 2027: 1879: 1774: 1677: 1550: 1447: 1325: 1298: 1124: 857: 836: 378: 311: 3729:

People will want to know about the victims of this event. It's informative and notable. (

3291:

to warrant her own article, & is sufficiently covered in the List of victims article.

2713: 2009: 1598: 1582: 1578: 1510: 1182:- Is the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Just because some users might 245:(article recently created), but I am unsure if this crosses the threshold for inclusion. 2914:

delete eventually--yes; delete this week,no. Delete when it makes good sense to do so.

3979: 3400: 3039: 3007: 2750: 2675: 2633: 2562: 2462: 2312: 1848: 1808: 1619: 1290: 1120: 1064: 977: 799: 703: 685: 663: 623: 605: 577: 295: 266: 4010: 3936: 3673: 3603: 3586: 3582: 3561: 3240: 3236: 3182: 3115:

on the issue - it is not an arbitrary argument, it is a standing WP policy. Actually,

3095: 3091: 3053: 2411: 2076: 2071: 2005: 1033:

had quite properly been removed after the shootings, but the Internet Wayback Machine

392: 4027: 4018: 4001: 3897: 3828: 3730: 3607: 3480: 3451: 3235:. I think it is utterly clear that the subject of this article fits the criteria in 3169: 3146: 3099: 3057: 2814: 2717: 2694: 2670: 2646: 2616: 2550: 2528: 2415: 2383: 2308: 2268: 2252: 2219: 2088: 2044: 2013: 1982: 1942: 1922: 1909: 1888: 1870: 1830: 1749:

It's not the subject she taught (French) that is at question here. She fails to meet

1423: 1354: 1308: 1294: 1258: 1237: 1216: 1209: 1187: 681: 291: 1981:

all dissagree and found her "notable" enough to write stories primarily about her.--

4191: 4165: 4156: 4130: 4088: 4064: 3866: 3765: 3693: 3224: 2989: 2957: 2571: 2511: 2492: 2316: 2236: 2058: 1970: 1721: 1439: 1384: 1006: 990: 954: 819: 650: 632: 168: 156: 124: 3056:

through mulitiple publshed works by reliable sources being primarily about her. --

1029:"French instructor". I initially assumed that the link to her description at the 1026: 224: 2075:

of mulitple published works by reliable sources, for whatever reason, she passes

1911: 103:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

4256: 4059: 3706: 3678: 3644: 3549: 3260: 2837: 2801: 2770: 2054: 1915: 1804: 1758: 1705: 1443: 1435: 1338: 949:, seven spaceflight participants died, but I think only one person, the teacher 262: 1297:-- these are the only names (besides the perp) who deserve their own articles. 4255:. If Couture:Nowak did, there would be little argument about her inclusion. -- 3853:. Notable enough for a subsection of the VTM page; not for her own bio yet. 3573: 3312: 3294: 3201: 2561:

I don't like "wait and see" only because it leads to inclusion of people like

1693: 1213: 694: 672: 641: 614: 596: 565: 324: 279: 2545:

the subject of multiple non-trivial published works, the primary crierion of

2906: 2431:, which common sense would suggest to see as overriding all else mentioned. 1472:

evaluate the article on the grounds of those, but as per Tejastheory above,

1030: 508: 357: 2725:

I am afraid thinking does have to be employed when applying WP policies...

590:

her article but only for the right reasons based on her credentials as per

2491:; would be willing to reconsider if additional evidence were produced. -- 631:

It is because not all victims of 9/11 were paid attention by the media. --

3794:

Delete (no objection to merging highlights into main VT incident article)

3342: 3326: 3031: 2541:- Next time I get pounced on for wanting to keep an article topic that's 1966: 1476:

isn't a carte blanche to create articles from every obituary in the paper

1264: 553: 4188: 4153: 4127: 2669:

Actually many people have articles here based on having being murdered

1585:(Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; 738: 356:! Got it. Hard disk space is almost as precious as oxygen, after all. 1346: 1342: 3548:. No other notability exists that would warrant a seperate article. 2160:. The reason why there are not articles for every single victim in 3090:

as frivolous. To say "Well, this topic might be notable and pass

1829:

I strongly disagree with you there. It qualifies as "historic". --

1773:- Per above; I feel there's far too much of a rush to delete here. 2427:

would be the applicable policy. But, first and foremost, there is

1541:

Absolutely not notable for reasons other then the person's death.

2796:

Not a notable academic. Victim of VT shooting can be covered in

671:"was a graduate student in Civil Engineering" is notable to you? 4269:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2315:, also instructors killed in the massacre, are not? Illogical!! 1974: 1737:

Professor Nowak for that matter, if not for her tragic death.

66: 1589:

furthermore meeting all the notability criterion below), per

3325:

with the list article. This article reads like an obituary.

798:. A clearly ill-advised AfD nomination at the wrong time... 564:

Lots of Canadians died today, do we give them all articles?

97:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 3527:

and redirect to the massacre article. Laacks notability. -

495:

subject of notable independent non-trivial works from RS.

3287:

Ms. Couture-Nowak does not have sufficient notability per

3200:

indeed, even in times of sorrow WP is not a memorial.. --

1022: 87:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

2164:

massacre should apply to this individual in question.

1637:

but they are typically NOT split into separate articles

778:

Delete unless her notability can be established as per

649:

Oh, then just listen more. You will hear. Don't rush --

220: 216: 212: 1404:

wholesale just because "there's no harm in adding it"

3243:

needs to be rethought. In the meantime, let's apply

3086:

That's rendering the very core inclusion criteria of

1635:

That's why they are mentioned on Knowledge (XXG)...

4126:. Worthy of inclusion to all intents and purposes. 3499:. People aren't notable for dying horrible deaths. 2035:Elucidating? I had to look that one up. Actually, 1917:. This is the primarly "notability" criterion for 1157:, notable for involvement in Monday's massacre. -- 658:But they were paid attention to. All the people in 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1333:Actually, all of those articles focus directly on 972:list of Academics and educators-related deletions 4279:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1587:it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance" 1459:notable, but teachers are not usually notable. 928:As I've said in the other AfD discussion, it is 1577:While many people enjoy carrying the banner of 2905:NN, should be consolidated with other victims 2645:in the incident. Keeping this is abuse of WP. 2307:- MAKES NO SENSE - why is SHE deleteable when 1757:. She does not appear to be one of of them. -- 684:failed degree doesnt make him notable either, 4063:at present meet standard inclusion criteria. 3717:Not notable, not a memorial, not an obituary 3365:, because a) she is notable, b) she fulfills 2461:Huh? I hope not as those comments are valid, 2193:Not notable for reasons other than her death. 117:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 8: 4046:. The argument must therefore be made under 1807:get to have articles, then so should this. 523:, again more crystal ball and recentism. -- 241:. A claim for notability is as founder of 1565:for the reasons stated immediately above. 1434:Contrast this instance with the entry for 91:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 3284:List of victims of Virginia Tech massacre 3129:While the primary inclusion criterion of 2749:, redirects are cheap, no afd necessary. 1801:Atlantic Southeast Airlines destinations 970:: This debate has been included in the 111:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 1422:a memorial, even in times of sorrow. - 3450:. Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial. 3030:a breaking news source - that is what 747:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (academics) 310:Needs some serious work, however. --- 4178:reason for the article. As I see it, 2008:. We don't choose who is "notable", 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 4143:them before joining the discussion. 3668:. My views correspond to the essay 3141:is a sub-clause buried in the page 743:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (people) 377:have something notable about them. 3931:, at least for now. Does not pass 3602:applies to people who do not pass 1732:- Mme Couture-Nowak fails to meet 24: 3221:Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial 1960:That just means you're employing 947:Space Shuttle Challenger disaster 662:Brit article look notable to me, 2582:, meets WP:BIO, and is notable. 1867:Clintion affair and impeachement 1633:All of these deaths are notable. 1285:-- we should be clear headed -- 1025:as a "French teacher". The BBC 552:by someone she never even knew. 70: 3353:- not a memorial, not notable. 3259:It was a notable victim IMHO -- 2083:very clearly. If you choose to 818:a collection of obituaries. -- 733:(reindent)So we all agree that 2126:eligible for deletion anyway. 1: 2823:Deserves to be remembered. -- 107:on the part of others and to 3096:Notability is not subjective 2072:Notability is not subjective 2006:Notability is not subjective 1287:this is not a moral question 354:err on the side of exclusion 4237:| Granata is a world expert 3446:per deletes above. Fails 3219:. My condolences. However, 2410:Yes, this person does. Per 491:- Doesn't appear to be the 4296: 4260:10:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4244:10:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4228:08:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4214:10:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4195:07:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4169:00:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4160:00:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4148:22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4134:21:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4117:22:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4107:20:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4092:20:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4080:18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4068:18:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4031:18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4022:18:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 4005:17:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3987:13:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3956:13:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3944:09:56, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3920:11:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3911:09:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3901:07:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3891:04:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3870:02:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3858:02:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3842:00:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3832:00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3819:00:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC) 3807:23:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3789:17:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3769:17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3757:September 11, 2001 attacks 3734:17:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3722:16:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3710:16:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3698:15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3682:14:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3653:13:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3639:13:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3627:11:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3611:20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3577:08:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3553:04:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3537:03:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3520:03:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3504:02:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3484:21:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3468:23:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3455:00:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3437:23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3425:23:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3387:23:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3374:21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3358:21:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3346:20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3330:19:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3316:19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC) 3298:18:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3268:15:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3252:14:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3228:12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3212:12:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3191:12:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3173:12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3150:17:43, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3125:09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3111:standing in opposition to 3107:Now, what we have here is 3103:09:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3082:08:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3061:08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3048:07:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 3011:07:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2999:04:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2974:03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2961:02:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2910:00:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2855:00:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2841:10:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 2828:07:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2805:00:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2787:04:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2774:23:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2762:22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2730:23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2721:23:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2708:23:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2698:23:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2689:23:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2679:22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2662:22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2650:22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2637:22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2620:22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2608:22:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2575:21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2554:21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2532:21:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2515:21:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2506:a memorial, does not meet 2496:21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2476:22:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2466:21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2454:21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2436:22:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2419:21:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2406:20:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2393:19:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2351:19:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2336:19:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2320:19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2300:19:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2288:19:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2272:18:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2260:18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2244:18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2223:18:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2218:. Sufficiently notable. -- 2186:18:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2131:18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2092:21:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2066:12:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2048:08:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2031:04:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 2017:23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 2000:22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1986:22:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1956:21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1946:21:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1936:19:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1926:18:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1902:18:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1892:18:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1883:17:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1874:17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1861:17:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1852:17:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1843:17:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1834:17:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1825:17:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1812:17:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1790:17:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1778:16:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1762:10:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 1742:17:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1725:16:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1709:15:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1697:15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1681:15:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1623:14:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1611:14:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1570:13:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1558:13:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1534:11:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1522:11:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1502:11:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1464:10:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1451:10:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1427:10:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1409:09:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1399:08:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1376:08:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1358:16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1329:10:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1312:07:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1302:07:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1269:06:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1241:07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1232:07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1220:07:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1204:07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1191:06:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1175:06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1162:05:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1150:05:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1128:04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1110:04:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1082:04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1068:04:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1050:05:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 1014:05:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 994:03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 981:03:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 958:03:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 938:02:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 919:02:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 906:02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 896:02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 871:03:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 861:02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 851:02:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 840:02:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 827:02:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 803:02:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 787:01:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 771:00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 757:01:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 739:In Memoriam Sept 11th wiki 707:01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 698:01:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 689:01:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 676:01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 667:01:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 654:01:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 645:01:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 636:01:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 627:00:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 618:00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 609:00:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 600:00:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 581:00:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 569:00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 557:00:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 544:00:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 528:00:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 512:00:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 500:00:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 480:13:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 444:00:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 401:09:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 382:07:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 361:04:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 344:00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 328:23:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 315:23:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 299:23:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 283:23:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 270:23:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 253:23:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 56:14:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4138:Please also note this is 2346:the side of INCLUSION! -- 1716:— the combination of her 1257:first one proposed today 4272:Please do not modify it. 3951:Does not meet WP:PROF -- 3306:. On further reading of 3183:the notability guideline 1335:her work during her life 1318:her work during her life 243:École acadienne de Truro 32:Please do not modify it. 4099:Yet Another Strong Keep 2933:) 21:22, April 18, 2007 2882:) 19:39, April 18, 2007 2057:, who gave her name to 2023:elucidating the details 149:; accounts blocked for 119:single-purpose accounts 89:policies and guidelines 3513:Virginia Tech massacre 3020:Virginia Tech massacre 2983:Virginia Tech massacre 2798:Virginia Tech massacre 2630:Virginia Tech massacre 1690:Virginia Tech massacre 1674:Virginia Tech massacre 1567:President David Palmer 1031:VT French faculty page 814:. Knowledge (XXG) is 187:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak 62:Jocelyne Couture-Nowak 3969:few or no other edits 2947:few or no other edits 2896:few or no other edits 2712:Your opinion of what 2370:few or no other edits 2343:Strongest Keep Around 2295:per WP:NOT, WP:PROF. 2199:comment was added by 1645:comment was added by 1096:comment was added by 3971:outside this topic. 3036:we aren't a memorial 2949:outside this topic. 2898:outside this topic. 2401:notable on her own. 2372:outside this topic. 1979:The Chronicle-Herald 1345:, or perhaps all of 1137:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 3650:Hit bull, win steak 3509:Delete and Redirect 3239:. This shows that 3137:are adhered to and 3016:Delete and redirect 1668:. Or still better, 1371:as per MCalamari -- 1351:avoid systemic bias 1208:Here's 3 for now - 1021:. Her former work 903:Hit bull, win steak 868:Hit bull, win steak 848:Hit bull, win steak 539:- As stated above. 101:by counting votes. 80:not a majority vote 2780:this is not a vote 749:in particular. - 680:Not of itself but 3972: 2950: 2935: 2921:comment added by 2899: 2884: 2870:comment added by 2760: 2628:details into the 2373: 2212: 2184: 1658: 1498: 1393: 1113: 975: 951:Christa McAuliffe 478: 442: 182: 181: 178: 105:assume good faith 4287: 4274: 4077:DevelopedMadness 4026:Alrighy, then.-- 3958: 3851:Merge and delete 3762:seperate article 3696: 3460:Very Strong Keep 3422: 3415: 3410: 3407: 3245:Ignore All Rules 3045: 2981:and redirect to 2936: 2934: 2915: 2885: 2883: 2864: 2778:Please remember 2756: 2714:relaible sources 2602: 2595: 2588: 2386: 2355: 2239: 2194: 2181: 2175: 2170: 2169: 2010:reliable sources 1640: 1553: 1500: 1497: 1492: 1489: 1484: 1391: 1091: 966: 888: 472: 470: 466: 436: 434: 430: 228: 210: 176: 164: 148: 132: 113: 83:, but instead a 74: 67: 53: 34: 4295: 4294: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4277:deletion review 4270: 3915:Oy. I give up. 3839:Justanothermutt 3816:Justanothermutt 3691: 3598:doesn't apply. 3501:Titanium Dragon 3421: 3416: 3413: 3408: 3401: 3323:Delete or Merge 3043: 2916: 2865: 2817:18th April 2007 2598: 2591: 2584: 2384: 2358:172.166.196.253 2348:172.166.196.253 2333:StuffOfInterest 2237: 2195:—The preceding 2179: 2173: 2165: 2123:(edit conflict) 1993:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 1787:StuffOfInterest 1664:as not passing 1641:—The preceding 1556: 1551: 1547: 1544: 1493: 1485: 1480: 1477: 1092:—The preceding 886: 784:StuffOfInterest 768:164.107.223.217 735:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL 468: 464: 432: 428: 352:Ah, so we must 323:circumstances. 201: 185: 166: 154: 138: 122: 109:sign your posts 65: 51: 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4293: 4291: 4282: 4281: 4265: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4246: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4104:24.154.173.243 4096: 4095: 4094: 4070: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 3995:Does not meet 3989: 3973: 3946: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3913: 3873: 3872: 3860: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3844: 3834: 3822: 3821: 3809: 3797: 3791: 3771: 3737: 3724: 3712: 3700: 3684: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3630: 3629: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3555: 3544:Clearly fails 3539: 3522: 3506: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3471: 3470: 3457: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3417: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3360: 3348: 3332: 3319: 3318: 3271: 3270: 3254: 3230: 3214: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3013: 3001: 2976: 2963: 2951: 2912: 2900: 2857: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2825:132.170.35.167 2818: 2807: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2754: 2753: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2664: 2639: 2622: 2610: 2577: 2563:Kristi Yamaoka 2556: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2498: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2313:Liviu Librescu 2302: 2290: 2274: 2262: 2246: 2225: 2213: 2188: 2154:her own merits 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2041:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1962:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1794: 1793: 1792: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1722:Jonathan Bowen 1711: 1699: 1683: 1659: 1625: 1613: 1572: 1560: 1548: 1545: 1542: 1536: 1524: 1504: 1466: 1453: 1429: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1378: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1291:Liviu Librescu 1280: 1271: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1177: 1164: 1152: 1130: 1121:Liviu Librescu 1114: 1084: 1070: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 997: 996: 983: 963: 962: 961: 960: 923: 922: 921: 898: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 843: 842: 829: 805: 789: 773: 761: 760: 759: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 656: 629: 546: 541:FreshFlyFamous 533: 532: 531: 530: 515: 514: 502: 485: 484: 483: 482: 448: 447: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 347: 346: 331: 330: 317: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 235: 234: 180: 179: 75: 64: 59: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4292: 4280: 4278: 4273: 4267: 4266: 4261: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4247: 4245: 4242: 4238: 4234: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4226: 4222: 4219: 4215: 4212: 4207: 4204: 4196: 4193: 4190: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4167: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4158: 4155: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4146: 4141: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4132: 4129: 4125: 4122: 4118: 4115: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4105: 4100: 4097: 4093: 4090: 4086: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4078: 4074: 4071: 4069: 4066: 4061: 4057: 4053: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4038: 4032: 4029: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4008: 4007: 4006: 4003: 3999: 3998: 3993: 3990: 3988: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3961:24.200.156.62 3957: 3954: 3953:24.200.156.62 3950: 3947: 3945: 3942: 3938: 3934: 3930: 3927: 3921: 3918: 3914: 3912: 3909: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3899: 3894: 3893: 3892: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3871: 3868: 3864: 3861: 3859: 3856: 3852: 3849: 3848: 3843: 3840: 3835: 3833: 3830: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3820: 3817: 3813: 3810: 3808: 3805: 3801: 3798: 3795: 3792: 3790: 3787: 3783: 3779: 3775: 3772: 3770: 3767: 3763: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3741: 3738: 3735: 3732: 3731:Bjorn Tipling 3728: 3725: 3723: 3720: 3719:199.94.78.104 3716: 3713: 3711: 3708: 3704: 3701: 3699: 3695: 3688: 3685: 3683: 3680: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3660: 3659: 3654: 3651: 3646: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3637: 3632: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3624: 3619: 3616: 3612: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3597: 3593: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3575: 3571: 3567: 3563: 3559: 3556: 3554: 3551: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3538: 3535: 3532: 3531: 3526: 3523: 3521: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3507: 3505: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3491: 3490: 3485: 3482: 3478: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3461: 3458: 3456: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3442: 3438: 3435: 3431: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3420: 3411: 3406: 3405: 3398: 3395: 3394: 3388: 3385: 3380: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3372: 3371:172.162.46.70 3368: 3364: 3361: 3359: 3356: 3352: 3349: 3347: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3333: 3331: 3328: 3324: 3321: 3320: 3317: 3314: 3309: 3305: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3296: 3292: 3290: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3269: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3255: 3253: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3231: 3229: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3215: 3213: 3209: 3208: 3203: 3199: 3196: 3192: 3189: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3171: 3166: 3163: 3151: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3131:WP:NOTABILITY 3128: 3127: 3126: 3123: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3088:WP:NOTABILITY 3085: 3084: 3083: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3041: 3037: 3034:is for - and 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3014: 3012: 3009: 3005: 3002: 3000: 2997: 2996: 2993: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2972: 2967: 2966:Strong Delete 2964: 2962: 2959: 2955: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2940: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2913: 2911: 2908: 2904: 2901: 2897: 2893: 2889: 2888:76.23.215.101 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872:76.23.215.101 2869: 2861: 2860:Speedy Delete 2858: 2856: 2853: 2849: 2846: 2842: 2839: 2834: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2822: 2819: 2816: 2811: 2808: 2806: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2759: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2731: 2728: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2706: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2696: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2687: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2677: 2672: 2671:Amanda Dowler 2668: 2665: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2648: 2643: 2640: 2638: 2635: 2631: 2626: 2623: 2621: 2618: 2614: 2611: 2609: 2606: 2603: 2601: 2596: 2594: 2589: 2587: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2573: 2569: 2564: 2560: 2557: 2555: 2552: 2548: 2547:WP:NOTABILITY 2544: 2540: 2537: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2521:WP:NOTABILITY 2518: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2502: 2499: 2497: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2483: 2477: 2474: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2452: 2448: 2445: 2437: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2417: 2413: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2404: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2391: 2389: 2387: 2380: 2377: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2349: 2344: 2341: 2337: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2309:Kevin Granata 2306: 2303: 2301: 2298: 2294: 2291: 2289: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2275: 2273: 2270: 2266: 2263: 2261: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2247: 2245: 2241: 2240: 2233: 2229: 2226: 2224: 2221: 2217: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2201:KingOfExtreme 2198: 2192: 2189: 2187: 2182: 2176: 2168: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2132: 2129: 2124: 2121: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2073: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2029: 2024: 2020: 2019: 2018: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1954: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1944: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1934: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1914: 1912: 1910: 1908: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1881: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1850: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1841: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1832: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1823: 1818: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1810: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1776: 1772: 1769: 1763: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1740: 1735: 1731: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1712: 1710: 1707: 1703: 1700: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1684: 1682: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1626: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1614: 1612: 1609: 1605: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1573: 1571: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1540: 1537: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1525: 1523: 1520: 1519:Utopianheaven 1516: 1512: 1508: 1505: 1503: 1499: 1496: 1495:(talk to me!) 1490: 1488: 1483: 1475: 1470: 1467: 1465: 1462: 1457: 1454: 1452: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1430: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1410: 1407: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1379: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1367: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1310: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1295:Kevin Granata 1292: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1279: 1278:76.109.163.61 1275: 1272: 1270: 1267: 1266: 1260: 1259:Ryan C. Clark 1255: 1252: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1212: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1202: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1178: 1176: 1173: 1168: 1165: 1163: 1160: 1156: 1153: 1151: 1148: 1144: 1143: 1138: 1134: 1131: 1129: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1088: 1085: 1083: 1080: 1077: 1074: 1071: 1069: 1066: 1062: 1059: 1058: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1023:describes her 1020: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 995: 992: 987: 984: 982: 979: 973: 969: 965: 964: 959: 956: 952: 948: 944: 941: 940: 939: 936: 931: 927: 924: 920: 917: 914: 909: 908: 907: 904: 899: 897: 894: 893: 889: 883: 880: 879: 872: 869: 864: 863: 862: 859: 854: 853: 852: 849: 845: 844: 841: 838: 833: 830: 828: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 806: 804: 801: 797: 793: 790: 788: 785: 781: 777: 774: 772: 769: 765: 762: 758: 755: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 732: 708: 705: 701: 700: 699: 696: 692: 691: 690: 687: 683: 679: 678: 677: 674: 670: 669: 668: 665: 661: 657: 655: 652: 648: 647: 646: 643: 639: 638: 637: 634: 630: 628: 625: 621: 620: 619: 616: 612: 611: 610: 607: 603: 602: 601: 598: 593: 589: 584: 583: 582: 579: 575: 572: 571: 570: 567: 563: 560: 559: 558: 555: 550: 547: 545: 542: 538: 535: 534: 529: 526: 522: 519: 518: 517: 516: 513: 510: 506: 503: 501: 498: 494: 490: 487: 486: 481: 476: 471: 467: 460: 455: 452: 451: 450: 449: 446: 445: 440: 435: 431: 424: 420: 416: 415: 402: 399: 394: 390: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 380: 376: 372: 368: 364: 363: 362: 359: 355: 351: 350: 349: 348: 345: 342: 338: 335: 334: 333: 332: 329: 326: 321: 318: 316: 313: 309: 306: 300: 297: 293: 292:Amanda Dowler 289: 286: 285: 284: 281: 276: 273: 272: 271: 268: 264: 260: 257: 256: 255: 254: 251: 248: 244: 240: 232: 226: 222: 218: 214: 209: 205: 200: 196: 192: 188: 184: 183: 174: 170: 162: 158: 152: 146: 142: 136: 130: 126: 120: 116: 112: 110: 106: 100: 96: 95: 90: 86: 82: 81: 76: 73: 69: 68: 63: 60: 58: 57: 54: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4271: 4268: 4248: 4232: 4220: 4205: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4145:PrinceGloria 4139: 4123: 4114:PrinceGloria 4098: 4084: 4072: 4039: 3994: 3991: 3984:Rita Moritan 3975: 3948: 3928: 3908:PrinceGloria 3882:If you read 3879: 3874: 3862: 3850: 3811: 3802:per Dugwiki 3799: 3793: 3786:Black Falcon 3777: 3773: 3761: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3739: 3726: 3714: 3702: 3686: 3661: 3636:Ken Arromdee 3622: 3617: 3557: 3541: 3528: 3524: 3508: 3492: 3476: 3459: 3443: 3429: 3403: 3402: 3396: 3378: 3362: 3355:165.234.90.1 3350: 3334: 3322: 3303: 3279: 3275: 3273: 3272: 3256: 3249:Ken Arromdee 3232: 3216: 3206: 3197: 3188:PrinceGloria 3178: 3164: 3122:PrinceGloria 3079:PrinceGloria 3038:, either. -- 3015: 3003: 2994: 2990: 2978: 2965: 2953: 2939:76.5.198.210 2923:76.5.198.210 2917:— Preceding 2903:Delete/Merge 2902: 2866:— Preceding 2859: 2852:Weatherman90 2847: 2832: 2820: 2809: 2793: 2779: 2767: 2755: 2746: 2727:PrinceGloria 2705:PrinceGloria 2686:PrinceGloria 2666: 2659:PrinceGloria 2654: 2641: 2624: 2612: 2604: 2599: 2592: 2585: 2579: 2567: 2558: 2542: 2538: 2500: 2484: 2473:PrinceGloria 2458: 2446: 2433:PrinceGloria 2403:PrinceGloria 2397: 2378: 2342: 2324: 2304: 2292: 2276: 2264: 2248: 2235: 2227: 2215: 2190: 2161: 2153: 2149: 2128:PrinceGloria 2122: 2036: 2022: 1997:PrinceGloria 1971:Radio Canada 1953:PrinceGloria 1933:PrinceGloria 1899:PrinceGloria 1858:PrinceGloria 1840:PrinceGloria 1822:PrinceGloria 1816: 1796: 1782: 1770: 1746: 1739:PrinceGloria 1729: 1713: 1701: 1685: 1669: 1661: 1636: 1632: 1627: 1618:- per nom. 1615: 1606:lighten up. 1586: 1574: 1562: 1549: 1538: 1531:PrinceGloria 1526: 1506: 1494: 1486: 1481: 1468: 1456:Keep for now 1455: 1431: 1415: 1380: 1373:Witchinghour 1368: 1334: 1321: 1317: 1286: 1282: 1273: 1263: 1253: 1179: 1166: 1154: 1140: 1132: 1116: 1086: 1072: 1060: 1018: 1002: 985: 967: 942: 929: 925: 891: 881: 831: 807: 791: 775: 763: 587: 573: 561: 548: 536: 520: 504: 492: 488: 463: 453: 427: 418: 417: 388: 374: 370: 367:not psychics 366: 353: 336: 319: 307: 287: 274: 258: 236: 172: 160: 151:sockpuppetry 144: 133:; suspected 128: 114: 102: 98: 92: 84: 78: 45: 43: 31: 28: 4221:Strong Keep 4182:notability 4073:Strong Keep 4060:Sarah Payne 4056:WP:MEMORIAL 3967:) has made 3941:ArchStanton 3855:18.85.18.16 3645:Al Gore III 3623:Woohookitty 3465:HelpfulUser 3233:Weak delete 3139:WP:MEMORIAL 3113:WP:MEMORIAL 3067:WP:MEMORIAL 3004:Strong keep 2971:Gloriamarie 2945:) has made 2894:) has made 2821:Strong Keep 2586:JohnnyBGood 2429:WP:MEMORIAL 2368:) has made 2230:as failing 2059:Megan's Law 2055:Megan Kanka 1805:Qian Zhijun 1797:Strong Keep 1647:168.9.120.8 1608:Madcoverboy 1575:Speedy keep 1474:WP:NOTPAPER 1461:JeffBurdges 1444:Megan Kanka 1440:Megan's Law 1436:Sarah Payne 1406:Tejastheory 1339:Nova Scotia 1172:Tejastheory 1117:Weak delete 935:GarryKosmos 792:Speedy keep 764:Strong Keep 682:this chap's 525:Vintagekits 398:Vintagekits 341:Vintagekits 263:Sarah Payne 4241:Pablosecca 4225:Gisaster25 4211:Pablosecca 3917:Pablosecca 3888:Pablosecca 3670:WP:NOTNEWS 3517:FreeKresge 3434:Jimmi Hugh 3384:Jimmi Hugh 3024:notability 2784:Pablosecca 2451:Pablosecca 2423:Actually, 2297:Flavourdan 2285:TomTheHand 2063:Pablosecca 2028:Pablosecca 1775:HipsterDad 1448:Pablosecca 1326:Pablosecca 1299:Pablosecca 1147:<*: --> 1125:Bluedog423 858:Jimmi Hugh 837:Jimmi Hugh 497:The Behnam 457:memorials 379:Pablosecca 371:eventually 312:Lmcelhiney 85:discussion 3980:SqueakBox 3745:biography 3740:Weak keep 3337:-- fails 3008:Everyking 2676:SqueakBox 2634:Greenshed 2463:SqueakBox 2085:WP:IGNORE 2026:tragedy. 1849:Coolgamer 1809:Coolgamer 1620:Jauerback 1065:MCalamari 1061:Weak Keep 978:Pete.Hurd 930:too early 810:. Fails 800:Ranma9617 704:SqueakBox 686:SqueakBox 664:SqueakBox 624:SqueakBox 606:SqueakBox 578:SqueakBox 396:events.-- 296:SqueakBox 267:SqueakBox 141:canvassed 135:canvassed 94:consensus 4028:Kamikaze 4019:Oakshade 4002:Kamikaze 3898:Oakshade 3829:Medico80 3608:Oakshade 3495:. Fails 3481:Medico80 3452:Resolute 3280:redirect 3225:Bluerです。 3170:Dr Aaron 3147:Oakshade 3100:Oakshade 3058:Oakshade 3032:Wikinews 2931:contribs 2919:unsigned 2880:contribs 2868:unsigned 2815:Romancer 2747:redirect 2718:Oakshade 2695:Oakshade 2647:Medico80 2617:Eastmain 2559:Comment: 2551:Oakshade 2529:Oakshade 2416:Oakshade 2385:Eclectek 2366:contribs 2279:, fails 2269:Ckessler 2253:Dhartung 2220:Eastmain 2209:contribs 2197:unsigned 2089:Oakshade 2045:Oakshade 2014:Oakshade 1983:Oakshade 1967:CBC News 1943:Oakshade 1923:Oakshade 1889:Oakshade 1871:Oakshade 1831:Oakshade 1686:Redirect 1670:redirect 1655:contribs 1643:unsigned 1591:WP:PAPER 1424:Chardish 1395:contribs 1355:Oakshade 1309:Oakshade 1276:Notable 1238:Oakshade 1217:Oakshade 1188:Oakshade 1184:not like 1159:musicpvm 1142:Shazaam! 1106:contribs 1098:Jniel002 1094:unsigned 887:Outriggr 622:Indeed! 475:ahoy hoy 469:american 439:ahoy hoy 433:american 375:probably 231:View log 173:username 167:{{subst: 161:username 155:{{subst: 145:username 139:{{subst: 129:username 123:{{subst: 4253:WP:PROF 4249:Comment 4233:Comment 4206:Comment 4166:JoshuaZ 4089:JoshuaZ 4085:comment 4065:JoshuaZ 4044:WP:PROF 3997:WP:PROF 3933:WP:PROF 3880:Comment 3867:Tfine80 3804:RaveenS 3766:Dugwiki 3705:as DGG 3694:mwtoews 3666:WP:PROF 3596:WP:PROF 3570:WP:PROF 3546:WP:PROF 3497:WP:PROF 3477:Comment 3448:WP:PROF 3430:Comment 3397:Comment 3379:Comment 3367:WP:PROF 3339:WP:PROF 3179:Comment 2987:WP:PROF 2958:JForget 2833:Comment 2667:Comment 2655:Comment 2613:Comment 2572:MSJapan 2539:Comment 2512:MSJapan 2508:WP:PROF 2493:ElKevbo 2489:notable 2487:Is not 2459:Comment 2447:Comment 2398:Comment 2329:WP:PROF 2327:- Read 2325:Comment 2317:HeberMK 2281:WP:PROF 2265:Delete, 2238:pd_THOR 2232:WP:PROF 2191:Delete. 2158:WP:PROF 1817:Comment 1783:Comment 1755:WP:PROF 1751:WP:PROF 1747:Comment 1734:WP:PROF 1730:Comment 1718:WP:PROF 1666:WP:PROF 1628:Delete. 1539:Delete. 1515:WP:PROF 1432:Comment 1385:Samsara 1040:WP:PROF 1019:Comment 1007:Rbellin 1003:Comment 991:Nyttend 955:Que-Can 820:Rbellin 812:WP:PROF 796:WP:PROF 780:WP:PROF 651:Neo-Jay 633:Neo-Jay 592:WP:PROF 588:keeping 574:Comment 562:Comment 521:Comment 493:primary 389:Comment 337:Comment 288:Comment 275:Comment 239:WP:PROF 204:protect 199:history 137:users: 50:Michael 4257:Crunch 4192:F: --> 4157:F: --> 4131:F: --> 4054:. See 4052:WP:BIO 4048:WP:BIO 4040:Delete 4015:WP:BIO 3992:Delete 3949:Delete 3929:Delete 3884:WP:BIO 3782:WP:IAR 3715:Delete 3679:Edison 3662:Delete 3618:Delete 3600:WP:NOT 3594:too. 3592:WP:BIO 3566:WP:NOT 3558:Delete 3542:Delete 3525:Delete 3493:Delete 3444:Delete 3351:Delete 3335:Delete 3308:WP:BIO 3289:WP:BIO 3276:Delete 3265:-: --> 3217:Delete 3198:Delete 3143:WP:NOT 3135:WP:BIO 3117:WP:BIO 3109:WP:BIO 3098:. -- 3075:WP:BIO 3071:WP:BIO 2979:Delete 2954:Delete 2848:Delete 2838:Crunch 2802:Crunch 2794:Delete 2771:BrenDJ 2642:Delete 2527:do. -- 2525:WP:BIO 2504:WP:NOT 2501:Delete 2485:Delete 2425:WP:BIO 2293:Delete 2277:Delete 2249:Delete 2234:. — 2228:Delete 2150:Delete 2081:WP:BIO 2012:do. -- 1919:WP:BIO 1759:Crunch 1706:Lan Di 1662:Delete 1616:Delete 1604:WP:IAR 1595:WP:CSD 1563:Delete 1527:Delete 1507:Delete 1482:irides 1469:Delete 1420:WP:NOT 1416:Delete 1347:Canada 1343:Quebec 1322:before 1283:Delete 1226:Banyan 1198:Banyan 1167:Delete 1133:Delete 1076:WP:NOT 1073:Delete 1044:Banyan 986:Delete 913:Banyan 832:Delete 808:Delete 776:Delete 751:Banyan 745:, and 489:Delete 454:Delete 423:WP:IAR 365:We're 247:Banyan 208:delete 46:delete 4189:<K 4154:<K 4128:<K 3753:event 3749:event 3606:. -- 3574:Ragib 3409:Young 3313:Yksin 3295:Yksin 3202:Pudeo 3044:desat 2991:Gizza 2605:VIVA! 2174:habla 2167:María 1880:Tizio 1694:JyriL 1678:Tizio 1599:WP:DP 1583:WP:NN 1579:WP:NN 1511:WP:NN 1487:centi 1353:. -- 1079:DXRAW 1035:shows 695:Gdo01 673:Gdo01 642:Gdo01 615:Gdo01 597:Gdo01 566:Gdo01 465:young 459:creep 429:young 373:will 325:Xoloz 280:Gdo01 225:views 217:watch 213:links 115:Note: 16:< 4180:some 4176:only 4124:Keep 4013:and 4011:WP:N 3978:per 3976:Keep 3965:talk 3937:WP:N 3863:Keep 3812:Keep 3800:Keep 3774:Keep 3727:Keep 3703:keep 3687:Keep 3674:WP:N 3604:WP:N 3587:WP:N 3583:WP:N 3581:Per 3572:. -- 3562:WP:N 3560:per 3550:Rafy 3530:Phoe 3419:talk 3363:Keep 3304:Keep 3278:and 3261:Vlad 3257:Keep 3241:WP:N 3237:WP:N 3223:. — 3207:Talk 3165:Keep 3133:and 3092:WP:N 3069:and 3054:WP:N 3040:Core 2943:talk 2927:talk 2907:TSim 2892:talk 2876:talk 2810:Keep 2768:Keep 2758:(𒁳) 2625:Keep 2580:Keep 2568:need 2523:and 2412:WP:N 2379:Keep 2362:talk 2311:and 2305:Keep 2257:Talk 2216:Keep 2205:talk 2180:migo 2079:and 2077:WP:N 1977:and 1803:and 1771:Keep 1714:Keep 1702:Keep 1651:talk 1597:and 1552:talk 1442:for 1389:talk 1381:Keep 1369:Keep 1341:and 1274:Keep 1254:Keep 1229:Tree 1215:. -- 1201:Tree 1180:Keep 1155:Keep 1102:talk 1087:Keep 1047:Tree 1042:. - 1027:says 1011:Talk 968:Note 943:Keep 926:Keep 916:Tree 824:Talk 754:Tree 660:this 549:Keep 537:Keep 509:BRMo 505:Keep 461:in. 419:Keep 393:WP:N 358:Uggh 320:Keep 308:Keep 259:Keep 250:Tree 221:logs 195:talk 191:edit 4184:and 4140:NOT 3764:. 3585:? 3534:nix 3511:to 3343:Yaf 3327:D4S 3282:to 3028:not 3018:to 2751:dab 2543:not 2177:con 2162:any 1975:TQS 1688:to 1672:to 1478:- 1265:DGG 976:-- 974:. 816:not 554:ens 229:– ( 169:csp 165:or 157:csm 125:spa 99:not 4102:-- 3982:-- 3959:— 3939:. 3896:-- 3778:If 3707:V1 3568:, 3564:, 3423:} 3341:. 3293:-- 3274:* 3210:) 2937:— 2929:• 2886:— 2878:• 2836:-- 2800:. 2510:. 2364:• 2356:— 2283:. 2255:| 2242:| 2211:). 2207:• 1995:. 1973:, 1969:, 1921:-- 1676:. 1657:). 1653:• 1517:. 1513:, 1418:. 1397:) 1307:-- 1145:- 1139:- 1108:) 1104:• 856:-- 835:-- 265:, 223:| 219:| 215:| 211:| 206:| 202:| 197:| 193:| 175:}} 163:}} 153:: 147:}} 131:}} 121:: 52:as 48:. 3963:( 3736:) 3692:+ 3648:- 3414:ł 3412:{ 3404:R 3389:\ 3263:| 3204:( 3177:' 2941:( 2925:( 2890:( 2874:( 2600:c 2593:t 2360:( 2203:( 2183:) 2171:( 1649:( 1546:┘ 1543:└ 1392:• 1387:( 1112:. 1100:( 1009:| 901:- 892:§ 884:– 882:. 822:| 477:) 473:( 441:) 437:( 233:) 227:) 189:( 177:. 171:| 159:| 143:| 127:|

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Jocelyne Couture-Nowak - Knowledge (XXG)

Index