Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy

829:, for the time being at least. Yes, Knowledge (XXG) is not for just any news stories, but this story is still ongoing and currently of great concern to at least two major newspapers; it has received comment from various important figures, as mentioned in the article, as well as McCain himself. It's too early to declare it non-notable, when we haven't seen what (if any) effect it will have on McCain's presidential campaign; we should wait at least a month or so to determine the story's long-term impact, and only then consider it for possible deletion. 307:

Political positions of John McCain". Are you arguing that this is a coatrack because the full detail would be inappropriate? No, it's there to keep a summary discussion and the interested reader may visit the detailed page. Same here. The page in question isn't POV, isn't biased, isn't a sneaky attempt to do things that wouldn't be allowed on the McCain page, but is an expansion on the subject. Where in this page is there bias, the requirement of being a coatrack?

1131: 386:. If this page has POV problems, then let us fix them. My efforts have focused on deleting non-reliable sources (Huffington Post, Drudge), adding in contrary evidence to the body (e.g., Daniel Schnur's observations), detailed McCain reactions and extensive criticism of The New York Times. The article appears to me to be balanced and neutral. However, if you have further POV concerns, then please let's fix that. This isn't a POV fork. 886:- Just because printed encyclopedias tend to be out of date doesn't mean we have to be. :) The news is quite huge right now, and I don't doubt it will be regarded as prominent in the distant future as well. No doubt this will be a controversial article, but IMO Knowledge (XXG) has become fairly good at handling high-profile current political controversies... or at least not terrible enough to merit giving up completely. — 326:. perhaps my understanding of coatracking is deficient; i'll look into it, thank you. that said, there is a fairly strict argument made that having controversy sections and forked controversy articles are discouraged for BLP's, because of the fact that they become dumping grounds for POV pushes that would never fly within the body of a BLP. on that basis, i maintain that this is such a fork. the mccain article is in fact 539:. Writing history as it happens is a fool's errand. We're all doing it, including myself, but we can't pretend that we know now whether this will turn out to be a major story with legs or a one-week blip. As a practical matter, I like having this article for now, because it relieves the frequent edit and undue weight pressure off the McCain main and campaign articles. 962:

The NYT said that two anonymous ex-aides of the Senator feared that he was romantically involved. The rest of the articles (including the new developments from Newsweek) involve his relationships with her clients. All of this is carefully covered in the article. If you believe there are POV problems with the article, let's fix them.

726:

essentially gone into something of a bunker mode. Further, does anyone doubt that this will resurface again and again in the general election? This story is big now, during a time when the opposing party has other things to focus on, and cannot devote organized attention to promoting and expanding the controversy: that is to say,

846:

improve it, not delete it. Before anyone accuses me of wanting to keep this for political reasons, I'll point out that I argued for the keeping of a similar article about Barack Obama's 'Muslim school controversy'; while that was eventually deleted, I think it should have been kept, and I think this article should be as well.

1033:). Moreover, the controversy itself has been discussed in secondary sources. It will likely be a substantial issue in the campaign; if it simply fizzles out, we can always delete the article later. It clearly meets the core content policies, and I see no BLP issue with repeating what was said by major, reputable newspapers. 1396:

The fact remains that it would easily go on the candidacy article instead. Its been almost a full week now, and is mostly out of the emdia. The same discussion is had at the Brit Spears talk page regarding her breakdown. It is notable, but can be summed up in a few sentances, and there shouldnt be

1212:

Nope, the link you provided says nothing about an email from a lobbyist to the New York Times acknowledging that a lobbyist initiated McCain's improper pressure on the FCC. That is new information and can be seen as an indicator that McCain was acting as an agent for the lobbyist and her client. That

1155:

Not the email from a lobbyist acknowledging initiating the letter McCain sent to light a fire under the FCC. Emails can be smoking guns and this one was not reported anywhere before last week. The email indicates McCain was acting on behalf of the lobbyist rather than just merely working for the good

961:

Rumors don't but that is your POV characterization of this article. What belongs: verifiable statements from reliable sources written in a neutral tone. There is a difference. First, the romantic aspect, though the element getting the most press, is a small part of the whole story (and this article).

240:

Coatracking? "A coatrack article is a Knowledge (XXG) article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." Please discuss how this page is nominally discussing the lobyist controversy but instead is a cover for something else? This

803:

You're on. Friendly bet for $ 20 WikiBucks. Considering McCain's love of painting himself as a maverick, and Obama's love of contrasting himself with the "Washington games" of opponents, I'm thinking it gets brought up at almost every turn. Like Rezko will. I don't think the current cycle of the

754:

In addition, I'd note that the story's coverage has not waned since it first emerged - on the contrary, it seems to have increased exponentially. As we move into the general election, expect it to emerge again and again as a major flare-up, and to maintain a medium level of background prominence at

735:

coatracking, and is hardly a coatrack itself. It is increasingly impossible to deny that this is a major, specific, self-contained series of events which will have continued and ramifying importance in American national politics. It is notable, and people will be looking to Knowledge (XXG) to have

702:, merely that it is not of "lasting encyclopedic merit". and it's not. just as what you quoted: "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own". in six months, this controversy will be completely forgotten, in my opinion. hell, i give it two months. it's much ado about very little ado. 215:

Knowledge (XXG) isn't the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal either. This is verified information from reliable sources. What part of policy is this violating besides the POV that it is "gossip" and "smear"? It does not state that McCain did such and such. It states that the NYT reported that

1578:

I am a strong McCain supporter and feel this information is beneficial to my understanding of the candidate. I don't feel that this article is detrimental to his campaign or that it is biased against him. It seems like a review of the facts surrounding the issue - which I followed closely when it

1285:

Well see, the fact that he's got lobbyists working on his campaign should go in the campaign article. Its not a direct association with this "scandal", as much as it is with the campaign as a whole. I'm not directly involved with the McCain articles as a whole, so someone much more involved (and

671:

Knowledge (XXG) considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are

629:

issues, but because I'm not convinced that this is other than an ephemeral news story or is of lasting encyclopedic merit. Yes, it was on page A1 of the NY Times, and there are hundreds if not thousands of stories in other sources. But it has been a story for only a couple of days, and may well be

564:

but by the NYT and appears to be the result of an extremely complicated investigation and elaboration. The topic also, it may be found interesting to know, has been considered certainly notable abroad, as the foreign papers are giving it large space, often the first page. As for POV problems, it's

1423:

new articles in the past 1 day alone, and the articles are concentrating more on the important influence peddling allegations and less on the sleazy sex innuendo. Maybe it's time for editors here to stop making personal crystal ball type predictions about the future of this information (and using

1270:

Hard to know where this is heading. A week ago most(including me) thought this was just another meaningless sex story and would die in a day or so. The fact he's got by far the most lobbyists (59) working on his campaign could also generate further examination of his lobbyist connections over his

274:

of the BLP assists in getting past what would otherwise not fly in a BLP. if the material would be considered inappropriate in full detail within the mccain article, then why is it appropriate here. this entire controversy - and the controversy article - can be summarised in about a five sentence

1512:

Should be included in McCain's presidential campaign page but does not constitute its own article. If Norman Hsu's affair didn;t get its own page, neigther should this. The piece that is getting the air time and print space (the sex/sizzle aspect of the story) is nothing but hearsay from an anon

306:

There is no inherent bias in this article. Just as in many other places in Knowledge (XXG), it expands on the verifiable detail. Have you been to the McCain article recently? It's extremely long with editors calling for off-loading detail to "See Also" sections. There is a fork to "Main article:

845:

And as an aside, on the issue of neutrality: I think this article is actually pretty neutral at the moment, containing as it does a 'Criticism' section and making clear that the allegations are only that - allegations. But even if it wasn't neutrally written, that would be a reason to keep and

725:

There are several thousand Google News hits on this subject, and it is being covered widely in newspapers and on television, and has even reached the British papers. The scandal does not appear to be dying down, as the NYT has doubled down and McCain (according to The Note today from ABC) has

1530:

The John McCain page is so long that there are problems loading the page. Despite the backlash that the NY Times provoked, there are still some very important issues not only about the perhaps dubious salacious rumors, but the more important and undisputed ties of this "maverick" to lobbyists

599:

for now; this sub-article relieves the pressure on the main article and documents a current news item. Once this is no longer current we will know how it should be treated properly going forward. Deleting this will just mean that the John McCain article gets more editing churn.

1380:- This article is well written, well balanced and NPOV (presenting both the allegations and their denials), and cited to a reliable source. Even here in England I've heard of this and came to Knowledge (XXG) to learn more, and this page fully explained the situation to me. 150:

Ms. Iseman acknowledged in an e-mail message to The Times that she had sent to Mr. McCain’s staff information for drafting a letter urging a swift decision. Mr. McCain complied. He sent two letters to the commission, drawing a rare rebuke for interference from its

1444:

I'm not saying that this isnt notable... I'm asking why this cant just be a few sentances or an enitre section in the candadacy article? Why give it its own room when in the larger scale of things, there arent many people talking about this on the TeeVees?

1102:

334:

RS's used to support the entire controversy article (the remainder are meta sources about the controversy itself), adding a short para to the mccain article with the few necessary details will not bog down the article at all.

911:– It doesn't have a snappy name like "Lobbygate", but it's an issue being treated seriously in the press. The references are solid, and the controversy is developing a history, and therefore a context. Notable. – 730:

Any merger would result in a loss of detail which is unacceptable in a story of this obvious and demonstrable importance. Further, this information was forked from the Vicki Iseman article specifically to

245:? Of what? We are not reporters. We add in verifiable information from reliable sources written in a neutral tone. This is an expansion of what is written in the McCain articles -- as is usually done via 932:– It's irrelevant if there's any truth to the allegations made in the NYT article. This WP article describes a relevant, political event that people should be able to look up (like I just did myself). 249:] when the detail is best left to its own article. Where in this article (I'm not the primary author -- I added in the criticisms against The New York Times) that it is written with an editor's POV? 1603:

for all the reasons above. Horrendous case of recentism and a strong testament to the major ongoing problem we have here of editors who persistently conflate news stories with encyclopedic content.

275:

paragraph in the mccain article, where it will have appropriate weight, and not dance around BLP requirements. this also very much bumps up into the 'controversies section/article' problem.

865:

for major politicians, these things are important and do become part of history. At this point, as the obvious Republican candidate, he will remain relevant in American political history.

121: 1022: 630:

pretty much forgotten about in coming weeks or months, when there is other, fresher campaign news. I think for now it needs only a couple of sentences maximum, with citations, in

990:, which should be nothing more than the biography of her, in the article about McCain's campaign, which shouldn't have an incredibly long section about this controversy, or in 88: 83: 675:

There is no question that his matter is notable and the sources reliable. I believe that it is written neutrally, though naturally that is up for discussion and improvement.

92: 1112:" is important as hell and actually belongs in the main BLP. Shuffling it over behind this curtain was just an accomodation to pov pushers who wanted it deleted entirely. 75: 180:, but the depth of this controversy is not genuinely significant. So far, it is nothing more than allegations, none substantial. the ethics issues are real, but absent 518:. We have a responsibility to cover this in a sensitive, balanced and non-scandalous manner, but the controversy itself is certainly encyclopedic. It was A1 in the 1428:

arguments to bury and minimize it) and, instead, simply provide it in its entirety in a NPOV fashion to our readers as its being reported by reliable sources.

1271:

political career and this article might be just in the beginning stage; I do,however,think those 4 sentences you refer to should be in the main BLP right now.

330:

extremely long; instead, it has many template transclusions and a plethora of citations, which bog down page rendering. since there's barely more than three

1566:

and possibly rename. Ample precedent for such articles; it's the only way to give adequate coverage without overloading the main article about a candidate.

266:

the article exists precisely to confer greater weight to this "controversy" than it would otherwise have. thus, coatracking. the fact that it pertains to a

1240:

In a year's time, no one is going to care. In fact, it is already off most politico type blogs and websites. Its just feeding a ridiculous fire.

1417: 1492: 631: 1133:

And given that's it's been known for a very long time, do reliable sources (e.g. biographies of McCain) continue to give it substantial coverage?

206:

Agreed. ITs just using wikipedia to "smear" someone and reeks of the stench of bias. Delete this nonsense. Knowledge (XXG) is not the Enquirer

79: 1256:

Furthermore, this whole incident can be summed up in approx. 4 sentances, and can fit easily into the John McCain pres. candidacy article.

1586: 556:

It's pretty depressing seeing all these people quoting for deletion what is nothing else than an essay, and as such is a mere opinion like

1420: 148:

The Times' article is quite long and most readers seem to have not gotten to the end of it where the non-rumour important stuff is like: "

557: 583: 1182:

Seems pretty clear from the link I provided that the newspapers all knew eight years ago that McCain was acting on behalf of "Paxson."

1085: 157:

denied this part of the story and this part (including the FCC Chairman's rebuke of McCain for interference)is completely verifiable.

17: 1031: 1612: 1594: 1570: 1556: 1540: 1522: 1502: 1479: 1454: 1437: 1406: 1389: 1368: 1349: 1326: 1295: 1280: 1265: 1249: 1222: 1191: 1165: 1142: 1121: 1089: 1056: 1039: 1003: 972: 956: 941: 922: 901: 876: 855: 838: 813: 786: 764: 745: 711: 685: 647: 613: 591: 574: 548: 531: 498: 475: 459: 425: 396: 365: 344: 317: 284: 259: 226: 193: 166: 138: 57: 488: 449: 71: 63: 1066:

This is a notable controversy not only because it involves John McCain, but because there are concerns about the motives of the

896: 1313:

for new article creation; it doesn't belong there. This pagespace is the best place for this material; page watchers at

609: 1630: 36: 1034: 777:

wish there was a way to wager on that. i'd bet $ 20 in two months it's gone, gone, gone. ah well. time will tell. ;^)

216:

McCain did such and such or that aides feared that this and that happened. Third party sources, just as WP likes 'em.

1414: 986:

it's a legitimate controversy. Where else do you want to put the encyclopedic information about this issue, in

1629:

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

1590: 1433: 1364: 1276: 1218: 1161: 1117: 361: 162: 35:

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

587: 544: 1582: 1073: 582:

I lose patience opening the article creation log because it's too big. Articles like these are to blame. --

1552: 1450: 1402: 1345: 1291: 1261: 1245: 1187: 1138: 1081: 1052: 661: 466:

shouldn't a vote have a rationale related to the issues associated, rather than matters of inconvenience?

804:

story has even reached crescendo yet. We're gonna be glad we have a decent working article on this one!

999: 851: 834: 782: 707: 471: 441:. I lose patience opening the deletion log because it's too big. Nominations like these are to blame. -- 340: 280: 189: 53: 626: 515: 294: 1183: 1134: 1048: 493: 454: 698:

i can't speak for user MCB, but i don't see anywhere that he made the assertion that the article is

246: 153:" There have been multiple additional reliable sources reporting this aspect. McCain's people have 1532: 1429: 1360: 1272: 1214: 1157: 1113: 1026: 968: 937: 847: 830: 681: 527: 421: 392: 357: 313: 255: 222: 158: 1608: 1536: 1499: 1017: 560:. Speaking of more serious things, as noted, the issue wasn't started by a third-rate paper like 540: 1491:. Story received widespread coverage. Article in question is an appropriate sub-article of the 1548: 1518: 1475: 1446: 1398: 1385: 1341: 1322: 1287: 1257: 1241: 1077: 755:

all times. It is roughly equivalent to the events involving Obama and Rezko in this respect.

415:

You are aware there are already two paragraphs in the McCain article with a link to this one?

29:

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

995: 917: 809: 778: 760: 741: 703: 605: 467: 383: 336: 276: 185: 49: 665: 622: 267: 570: 483: 444: 1012: 1547:

We are not saying the main Mccain article... rather the 2008 Mccain candidacy article.

963: 933: 676: 523: 519: 416: 387: 308: 250: 217: 1604: 1496: 887: 872: 657: 643: 1567: 1514: 1471: 1381: 1318: 1310: 987: 952: 635: 511: 134: 297:

essay. Neither the text nor the examples seem to apply. Help relieve my confusion.

109: 1156:

of the country as he claimed when this story first broke (about the FCC rebuke).

1335: 1314: 991: 912: 805: 756: 737: 601: 177: 1309:- I was one of several who suggested and supported this material removed from 566: 480:

If there's a chance that it will get deleted I'll give a better rationale. --

382:

I defer to you about its length; I'm not a page editor but saw a discussion

1213:

was not reported eight years ago because the email was only sent recently.

241:

page uses nothing but very reliable sources and written neutrally. Absent

1425: 867: 639: 1047:

for the reasons explained by Wasted Time R (even though he abstained).

668:

isn't some blanket prohibition against covering news items, it says:

1470:

Is an op-ed piece considered a reasonable source for wiki content?

176:

i tend to agree. the controversy does deserve/require mention in

1623:

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

1359:

who don't want it merged there: nothing to do with notability.

132:"Controversy" page, inherent NPOV, rumours about living people 184:

that said ethics have been breached, it's mostly coatracking.

1355: 1100:

Because a small portion of this sub-article, specifically:"

1286:

experienced) can go ahead and add a few sentences. ;)

638:. Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper or news source. -- 353: 116: 105: 101: 97: 514:

biography specifically to keep that page from being a

946:

Actually, rumours have no place on Knowledge (XXG),

1011:. This issue has been discussed in multiple highly 728:

it's only going to get bigger and louder from here.

39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1633:). No further edits should be made to this page. 293:I don't see your understanding reflected in the 994:, which doesn't need this as a section either? 1413:Actually it's getting stronger legs and more 1130:Isn't that aspect of the story very old news? 660:? Or the immediate creation of an article on 8: 356:readers from the McCain article over here? 558:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) is failing 1340:Perhaps thats a sign its not notable... 1493:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 632:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 672:not sufficient basis for an article. 664:which garnered WP positive reviews? 656:So, you'd be against an article on 510:- I split this article out of the 24: 736:an article covering the subject. 565:just not a reason for deletion.-- 1513:source. Typical media reaction. 270:further suggests that moving it 72:John McCain lobbyist controversy 64:John McCain lobbyist controversy 352:I thought you were in favor of 322:there is bias in the article's 1: 1613:00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 1595:16:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 1571:15:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC) 1557:23:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1541:21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1523:19:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC) 1503:21:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1480:19:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1455:16:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1438:15:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1407:12:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1390:12:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1369:03:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1350:02:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1327:23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1296:22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1281:20:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1266:19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1250:19:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1223:16:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 1192:23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1166:19:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1143:19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1122:19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1090:14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1057:05:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1040:00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 1004:20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 973:18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 957:15:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 942:15:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 923:14:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 902:07:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 877:05:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 856:01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 839:01:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 814:00:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC) 787:23:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 765:23:33, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 746:23:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 712:23:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 686:23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 648:22:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 614:21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 592:21:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 575:21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 549:20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 532:19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 499:19:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 476:19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 460:19:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 426:20:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 397:20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 366:03:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC) 345:20:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 318:19:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 285:19:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 260:19:28, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 227:19:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 194:19:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 167:19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 139:19:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC) 58:00:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 1397:a seperate article for it. 1317:don't want it merged there. 1650: 1338:don't want it merged there 1626:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 1105:rebuke for interference 674: 662:Virginia Tech massacre 602:Matthew Brown (Morven) 950:about living people. 669: 522:, for heaven's sake. 1419:sources by the day: 1027:The Washington Post 243:verifiable evidence 182:verifiable evidence 1018:The New York Times 516:coatrack biography 1597: 1585:comment added by 1354:It's mainly pov 1108:from its chairman 1092: 1076:comment added by 971: 684: 424: 395: 316: 258: 225: 1641: 1628: 1580: 1071: 1036:*** Crotalus *** 1013:reliable sources 967: 920: 892: 680: 491: 486: 452: 447: 420: 391: 312: 254: 221: 119: 113: 95: 34: 1649: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1631:deletion review 1624: 918: 899: 888: 621:not because of 489: 484: 450: 445: 115: 86: 70: 67: 44:The result was 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1647: 1645: 1636: 1635: 1618: 1616: 1615: 1598: 1587:69.216.137.110 1573: 1560: 1559: 1544: 1543: 1525: 1506: 1505: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1464: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1441: 1440: 1430:Mr.grantevans2 1393: 1392: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1361:Mr.grantevans2 1330: 1329: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1273:Mr.grantevans2 1253: 1252: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1215:Mr.grantevans2 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1158:Mr.grantevans2 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1125: 1124: 1114:Mr.grantevans2 1094: 1093: 1068:New York Times 1060: 1059: 1042: 1006: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 926: 925: 905: 904: 895: 880: 879: 859: 858: 842: 841: 823: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 770: 769: 768: 767: 749: 748: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 691: 690: 689: 688: 651: 650: 616: 594: 577: 551: 534: 520:New York Times 504: 503: 502: 501: 463: 462: 435: 434: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 358:Mr.grantevans2 347: 301: 300: 299: 298: 288: 287: 263: 262: 234: 233: 232: 231: 230: 229: 208: 207: 199: 197: 196: 170: 169: 159:Mr.grantevans2 142: 141: 126: 125: 66: 61: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1646: 1634: 1632: 1627: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1601:Strong Delete 1599: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1577: 1574: 1572: 1569: 1565: 1562: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1529: 1526: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1511: 1508: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1487: 1486: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1422: 1418: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1394: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1376: 1375: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1337: 1332: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1304: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1254: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1236: 1235: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1109: 1106: 1099: 1096: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1043: 1041: 1038: 1037: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1023: 1020: 1019: 1014: 1010: 1007: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 982: 981: 974: 970: 965: 960: 959: 958: 955: 954: 949: 945: 944: 943: 939: 935: 931: 928: 927: 924: 921: 916: 915: 910: 907: 906: 903: 898: 893: 891: 885: 882: 881: 878: 874: 870: 869: 864: 861: 860: 857: 853: 849: 844: 843: 840: 836: 832: 828: 825: 824: 815: 811: 807: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 788: 784: 780: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 766: 762: 758: 753: 752: 751: 750: 747: 743: 739: 734: 729: 724: 721: 720: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 687: 683: 678: 673: 667: 663: 659: 658:Brian McNamee 655: 654: 653: 652: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 628: 624: 620: 617: 615: 611: 607: 603: 598: 595: 593: 589: 585: 584:72.209.11.186 581: 578: 576: 572: 568: 563: 559: 555: 552: 550: 546: 542: 541:Wasted Time R 538: 535: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 506: 505: 500: 497: 496: 495: 492: 487: 479: 478: 477: 473: 469: 465: 464: 461: 458: 457: 456: 453: 448: 440: 437: 436: 427: 423: 418: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 398: 394: 389: 385: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 348: 346: 342: 338: 333: 329: 325: 321: 320: 319: 315: 310: 305: 304: 303: 302: 296: 292: 291: 290: 289: 286: 282: 278: 273: 269: 265: 264: 261: 257: 252: 248: 244: 239: 236: 235: 228: 224: 219: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 205: 202: 201: 200: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 172: 171: 168: 164: 160: 156: 152: 147: 144: 143: 140: 137: 136: 131: 128: 127: 123: 118: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 68: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1625: 1622: 1617: 1600: 1575: 1563: 1549:Queerbubbles 1527: 1509: 1488: 1463: 1447:Queerbubbles 1399:Queerbubbles 1377: 1342:Queerbubbles 1334:watchers at 1333: 1311:Vicki Iseman 1306: 1288:Queerbubbles 1258:Queerbubbles 1242:Queerbubbles 1237: 1107: 1104: 1101: 1097: 1078:Dr.orfannkyl 1067: 1063: 1044: 1035: 1025: 1016: 1015:, including 1008: 988:Vicki Iseman 983: 951: 947: 929: 913: 908: 889: 883: 866: 862: 826: 732: 727: 722: 699: 670: 636:Vicki Iseman 618: 596: 579: 561: 553: 536: 512:Vicki Iseman 507: 494:(yada, yada) 482: 481: 455:(yada, yada) 443: 442: 438: 349: 331: 327: 323: 271: 242: 237: 203: 198: 181: 173: 154: 149: 145: 133: 129: 45: 43: 31: 28: 1581:—Preceding 1579:came out. 1564:Strong keep 1336:John McCain 1315:John McCain 1072:—Preceding 996:eigenlambda 992:John McCain 964:∴ Therefore 723:Strong keep 677:∴ Therefore 666:WP:NOT#NEWS 627:WP:COATRACK 619:Weak delete 417:∴ Therefore 388:∴ Therefore 309:∴ Therefore 295:WP:COATRACK 251:∴ Therefore 218:∴ Therefore 178:John McCain 50:Bongwarrior 1184:Ferrylodge 1135:Ferrylodge 1049:Ferrylodge 948:especially 779:Anastrophe 704:Anastrophe 700:prohibited 468:Anastrophe 337:Anastrophe 277:Anastrophe 247:WP:SEEALSO 186:Anastrophe 934:Schmappel 524:FCYTravis 324:existence 151:chairman. 1605:Eusebeus 1583:unsigned 1533:JonErber 1497:goethean 1426:strawman 1415:reliable 1086:contribs 1074:unsigned 890:xDanielx 848:Terraxos 831:Terraxos 122:View log 1568:Savidan 1515:Macutty 1472:Macutty 1382:Xmoogle 1356:pushers 1319:BusterD 1024:), and 634:and in 562:Insight 537:Abstain 354:sending 350:Comment 146:Comment 89:protect 84:history 1510:Delete 1238:Delete 914:Yamara 806:Mr. IP 757:Mr. IP 738:Mr. IP 623:WP:BLP 580:Delete 490:crewer 451:crewer 332:direct 268:WP:BLP 204:Delete 174:Delete 130:Delete 117:delete 93:delete 1030:(see 1021:(see 733:avoid 567:Aldux 120:) – ( 110:views 102:watch 98:links 16:< 1609:talk 1591:talk 1576:Keep 1553:talk 1537:talk 1528:Keep 1519:talk 1495:. — 1489:Keep 1476:talk 1451:talk 1434:talk 1403:talk 1386:talk 1378:Keep 1365:talk 1346:talk 1323:talk 1307:Keep 1292:talk 1277:talk 1262:talk 1246:talk 1219:talk 1188:talk 1162:talk 1139:talk 1118:talk 1098:Keep 1082:talk 1064:Keep 1053:talk 1045:Keep 1009:Keep 1000:talk 984:Keep 969:talk 953:Will 938:talk 930:Keep 909:Keep 884:Keep 873:talk 863:Keep 852:talk 835:talk 827:Keep 810:talk 783:talk 761:talk 742:talk 708:talk 682:talk 644:talk 597:Keep 588:talk 571:talk 554:Keep 545:talk 528:talk 508:Keep 485:brew 472:talk 446:brew 439:Keep 422:talk 393:talk 384:here 362:talk 341:talk 314:talk 281:talk 256:talk 238:Keep 223:talk 190:talk 163:talk 135:Will 106:logs 80:talk 76:edit 54:talk 48:. -- 46:keep 1070:. 868:DGG 640:MCB 625:or 328:not 272:out 155:not 1611:) 1593:) 1555:) 1539:) 1521:) 1478:) 1453:) 1436:) 1421:50 1405:) 1388:) 1367:) 1348:) 1325:) 1294:) 1279:) 1264:) 1248:) 1221:) 1190:) 1164:) 1141:) 1120:) 1088:) 1084:• 1055:) 1002:) 966:| 940:) 900:\ 875:) 854:) 837:) 812:) 785:) 763:) 744:) 710:) 679:| 646:) 612:) 590:) 573:) 547:) 530:) 474:) 419:| 390:| 364:) 343:) 311:| 283:) 253:| 220:| 192:) 165:) 108:| 104:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 82:| 78:| 56:) 1607:( 1589:( 1551:( 1535:( 1517:( 1500:ॐ 1474:( 1449:( 1432:( 1401:( 1384:( 1363:( 1344:( 1321:( 1290:( 1275:( 1260:( 1244:( 1217:( 1186:( 1160:( 1137:( 1116:( 1110:. 1080:( 1051:( 998:( 936:( 919:✉ 897:C 894:/ 871:( 850:( 833:( 808:( 781:( 759:( 740:( 706:( 642:( 610:C 608:: 606:T 604:( 586:( 569:( 543:( 526:( 470:( 360:( 339:( 279:( 188:( 161:( 124:) 114:( 112:) 74:( 52:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy - Knowledge (XXG)

Index