771:
therefore a legal non-entity. Second, her judgement should probably not be taken as a reference point; with all due respect for the situation, this girl made decidedly vulgar videos, pasted her name all over the place, and told a hive of trolls that "any fame is ok with her." Third, her family went on national TV with their real names in the midst of a cry that their privacy had been violated. I don't want to introduce critical bias to the article, or this discussion, but the facts to me suggest that trying to act as a protector in this case is a complete lost cause. In short,
539:. The problem is, that at least right now, its too difficult to know without a crystal ball, whether this will be a blip on the news radar, or something with lasting encyclopedic merit. So I say leave it for now, and come back in a month or two and re-examine. If there's no further coverage than this initial current burst and any minor followups, then deletion might be warranted.
673:
im justifying the bullying, but i think the details make this inherently notable. it may not be talked about as much 2 years from now, but it will, in my opinion, be a part of a lot of writings on cyberbullying, age of consent to post on ones own, parental controls. I would prefer such articles begin as sections in larger articles, but this has the marks of import.
344:, etc. These are all from the first results page for the name. I also read the article a few hours ago; I didn't find it too biased at all. It is a pretty good article; if there's any obvious bias, then that's probably just a result of the actual events that occurred, not because the article is trying to paint the events in a way that it's not.
105:
he might help reduce drama by making the basis of his explanation clearer to the community for when the inevitable DRV was filed, and to clearly encourage review (which would probably be required and good practice even if not). I did not take part in any decision to early close nor express a personal view on the AFD.
405:". As someone who posts occasionally on 4chan and was thus sitting in the eye of the shitstorm, the alleged pic is actually part of one of her videos, where she lifted up her top and covered her breast with her hand. That's not releasing it to pedophiles, that's releasing it to YouTube users in general.
770:
I'll go out on a limb and suggest that any goal other than simply recording the straight facts as they are made available by reliable sources is both unattainable and doomed to failure. First, as
Mercury points out she's not just underage but in some jurisdictions not even a juvenile. "Her will" is
672:
Remember, simply saying NOTNEWS is not an argument. the actual guidelines for news and current events are pretty complex. This, to me, appears to be a unique, new form of cyberbullying, in that the person bullied first engaged in apparently very irresponsible behavior for a person their age. not that
104:
Disclosure - It came out shortly after the above deletion that the closer had not really meant G10 so much as generalized serious concerns over harm to the point of early deletion (which was roughly his explanation). The wording above was my resulting comment and suggestion to the closing admin how
602:
and several print and online news outlets, etc, so notability in the present is virtually beyond question. The article could use some sprucing but is surprisingly not that bad, relatively free of bias, decently sourced, etc. My only reservation is that this could die down to sheer nothingness at
755:
to a certain degree, her own will is irrelevant. she is too young to make decisions for herself about how public she wishes to be. that is the sole responsibility of her parents/guardians, until she is of consent/emancipated. she may want her name on the front page of the NYT, and the parents can
1346:
as always, arguments must be made by policy. At least this is slightly more grounded in valid deletion arguments than the Donny whatshisname one was. I agree it probably is not notable, however I do not concur with the BLP argument. The reasoning of "this will haunt her adolesence" is totally
1331:
per Alison, Cool Hand Luke etc. While the author has made a good faith, conscientious effort to write a balanced article, Knowledge isn't a tabloid newspaper and there's nothing of lasting notability in this. Just because we can write about something, that doesn't mean we always should.
562:, and while "other crap exists" is typically an argument to avoid, that particular article has been heavily vetted and stands up. Concerns about content are valid, but not reason for deletion; the article should be kept and maintained carefully to avoid becoming an attack page.
1365:
stronger than anyone else's, for whatever reasons, we also have the responsibility for being one of the most visible hits. We're not here to exacerbate the problem, quite frankly, nor give credence to gutter journalism. And yes, the BLP argument is more than valid here -
1413:
newspaper, but the current article has zero encyclopedic content (apart from "girl acted her age without any thought; girl got bullied; news outlets exploited the situation"), and has no place here. Glorifying 4chan idiots is not part of
Knowledge's role. Delete per
990:
of living persons policy when the article has never tried to be a biography? What is it about this cyberbullying case that warrants deletion when other articles of similar scope and topic exist? It's certainly not the availability of reliable, mainstream sources.
603:
any time and if that happens I would end up likely supporting deletion, as I do not believe something that merited a few days of minor news coverage is truly noteworthy - still I support keeping at this time since prematurely deleting it is jumping the gun. -
901:
What was the name of the guy whose article was deleted by Jimbo because even though it was a well-documented internet meme, the meme was an attack on him because of his looks? "First do not harm." This little girl is eleven years old, for God's sake.
1563:. Currently. I do appreciate that the creator delayed the article creation and took some care with it, but we don't need an article until it is clear that there is significant, longer term impact. This is an encyclopedia not a gossipy thrill-mill. --
969:
It's difficult to respond to someone who so casually dismisses my attempt at writing a difficult article as a "steaming pile of shit," but here goes: The article isn't a biography of "Jessi
Slaughter," and it was deliberately written with
1273:, just for starters. It's a BLP nightmare and relates to the inane behavior of a child, who's clearly out of control. This does not need to haunt her adolescence, especially after she grows up a bit and realizes what an idiot she's been -
211:
1188:." And that's exactly how this article was written from the very beginning. The sheer thoughtlessness with which these recent delete voters are treating the pains that have been taken in writing this article in compliance with
310:
is easily fulfilled by the broad range of mainstream third-party references (in
American and international media), and any bias you perceive should be addressed by editing the article itself and participating on its Talk page.
1088:
Delete as a clear violation of WP:BLP1E: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a
Knowledge article." This is exactly the type of article we have been trying to outgrow as a project. — Carl
1347:
irrelevant - it is not been made up, any source that
Knowledge is quoting from will remain in existence, cache'd by Google and the like. The information is out there, Knowledge is merely colating it. She's already done it.
1210:" This story has persisted for what, 50 hours? As I said, if this becomes a lasting significant event, an article might be justified. As it is, it's nothing but news (NOTNEWS, recall), with the weight of BLP against it.
756:
legally deny her that. however, if any reliable sources show her thoughts, they can be added to article. I wonder if the parents might request that WP protect her identity on her behalf. probably too late for that.
789:
In borderline cases where the subject wishes deletion, the subject's wishes are generally considered a tipping !vote to delete. (in this case it would probably be the subject or her parents.)
205:
1361:
Tabloid newspapers claim to be .. tabloid newspapers. We're supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? Thus, we should aim to be a little better than that. Furthermore, as our
Googlejuice™ is
625:- If it is notable now, its notable forever. But we dont keep something on the premise that it MIGHT become notable in the future, particularly something with such troublesome BLP issues.
1225:
139:
134:
803:
I think i agree with you. But more to the point, i think that this thread should be copied onto the talk page of the article, as its important to the discussions occurring there.
143:
723:
and a great relief for her. Knowing her own will would make the decision easier. Is anything known about this, or is any way of checking this possible? (In the Hope
Witsell and
302:) 20:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Keep, obviously, as the article's creator. I must say, I've never seen a new article nominated for both AfD and DYK at the same time! To respond to
126:
517:
If this has caused enough of a stir to be mentioned on mainstream media, it's notable enough. As with khfan93's comment, biased portions can be edited to comply with NPOV.
598:
which does raise the question of "will this still be notable two years hence?" At the present time however it's something of a hotbutton issue, has received coverage on
341:
166:
698:
heartstrings. Whiny tween mouths off on the internet, attracts the wrath of the Killer /b/'s, hilarity ensues. Her encyclopediadramatica article is a hoot, though.
648:
171:
85:
of an eleven year old, concerns due to poor sourcing and lack of balance, non-encyclopaedic, and invitation to review at DRV and restore if consensus agrees."
401:
I'll give you an example. I just had to remove a segment of a sentence that said "she allegedly created nude photographs of herself and released them
130:
226:
193:
844:
Is there a reliable source stating that actual threats were made and verified by police? BTW, these discussions need to go to talk page. -
1581:
826:
if this is kept, it needs to be on permanent lockdown and high oversite. We are dealing with threats to a living person who is a minor.
1666:
1687:
1670:
1641:
1621:
1607:
1589:
1572:
1547:
1524:
1509:
1489:
1472:
1452:
1431:
1401:
1382:
1356:
1338:
1323:
1306:
1289:
1249:
1219:
1201:
1171:
1150:
1121:
1101:
1070:
1054:
1039:
1017:
1000:
960:
933:
911:
892:
867:
853:
835:
812:
798:
784:
765:
748:
707:
682:
663:
634:
612:
584:
566:
548:
525:
503:
482:
460:
437:
428:
We're all glad you've corrected that inaccurate description in the article, Crisis, but that is not a rationale for article deletion.
423:
396:
370:
320:
282:
260:
122:
109:
96:
71:
45:
1158:. Textbook BLP1E. Re-create if notability persists beyond this event. I wouldn't wager too much on it though, and I don't trust your
1008:
applies to ALL content about living people no matter where it appears. This article cannot exist without content about living MINOR.
187:
924:. Not sure though if this article contributes to her trouble. Should be deleted if subject of the article asks it to be deleted.
719:
attitudes of mass into a broader view), but an article of that quality may require expert supervision. An article can be both a
183:
17:
715:(question): Is her own will known? A professional Knowledge article can help her situation (turning the possible moralizing /
921:
728:
1045:
Yes I have. My statement was in response to your "The article isn't a biography" as if that exempted it from BLP criteria.
1532:
Per Cool Hand Luke, Allison and the others. Please let's use some common sense with a dose of common decency. Thanks, --
535:
for now. Notability is not an issue, its been firmly established. That said, I honestly wonder if this doesn't fall under
278:
233:
337:
414:
251:
1319:
907:
888:
744:
1480:. Does an 11 year old girl throwing a tantrum (and /b/ being /b/) really need to be documented in an encyclopedia? --
1208:
The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.
269:, it was apparently mentioned in ABC News. That's notable. And bias is nothing that can't be fixed with editing. --
1662:
1521:
948:
333:
1702:
1638:
808:
761:
678:
36:
199:
77:
Chosing which speedy delete criteria was difficult, however this page is contentious and may do potential harm.
1701:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1439:
per Alison. This isn't worthy of anything past a tabloid newspaper mention, it's a BLP nightmare, and entirely
1215:
1167:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1585:
1050:
1013:
863:
849:
831:
794:
780:
630:
608:
1315:
1245:
1197:
1066:
1035:
996:
903:
884:
740:
433:
362:
316:
299:
91:
66:
329:
1518:
1144:
695:
544:
470:
1658:
929:
804:
757:
674:
599:
307:
451:
Very notable, and with plenty of secondary sources. Also if the article is biased, tag accordingly.
1481:
1397:
1211:
1163:
1061:
In that case, you replied to an argument I never made while ignoring every point I actually wrote.
499:
456:
388:
356:
219:
1615:. As explained above, it's a simple BLP1E. There's nothing beyond "event→aftermath" to the story.
925:
1469:
1448:
1427:
1046:
1009:
956:
859:
858:
If they werent then we are totally dealing with a non-event and the article needs to be deleted.
845:
827:
790:
776:
626:
604:
581:
520:
478:
1026:? "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name
1654:
1580:. The purpose of Knowledge is not to embarrass 11-year old girls for the rest of their lives.
1560:
1545:
1440:
1419:
1302:
1270:
1241:
1193:
1159:
1134:
1118:
1114:
1062:
1031:
992:
691:
659:
595:
574:
536:
429:
312:
295:
274:
86:
61:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1616:
1605:
1139:
540:
412:
249:
1683:
1650:
1556:
1502:
1498:
1415:
1266:
1189:
1181:
1110:
1023:
971:
1568:
1393:
1352:
1333:
732:
720:
716:
703:
495:
452:
381:
346:
289:
1228:(News Limited, Australia, July 19, 2010) is not fifty hours. In fact, I intentionally
1634:
1444:
1423:
1130:
1096:
1005:
952:
775:
is the one and only thing I think we have an obligation to concern ourselves with. -
772:
736:
724:
578:
559:
491:
and I thought it was good enough. But I guess you're right. A better vote would been
474:
82:
78:
1533:
1465:
1298:
655:
563:
270:
160:
1598:
1461:
1367:
1274:
983:
622:
407:
303:
244:
1137:. As animate has said, this will disappear from peoples minds in a few weeks.—
1030:." That is exactly how this article has been handled from the very beginning.
978:
and its aftermath in the context of other notable groups and figures including
1679:
1410:
1564:
1348:
699:
694:, a blip with no lasting significance other than to tug at middle America's
1630:
1092:
106:
1240:
interview as obviously breaking beyond the level of previous coverage.
1409:
An article on the bullying of an 11 year old girl would be great in a
1184:: "In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and
1297:, for the sake of humanity and the reasons given above. Really...
1232:
to create the article. I didn't write the article until after the
1206:
And the carelessness of your dismissal is no less unappreciated. "
979:
1117:. It's a news story this week, no one will remember it in a few.
378:
Lots of notable sources, and what bias, it's a list of facts. --
1695:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1629:. Per Tony Fox, CHL, Alison, et al. We just don't need this. ++
735:, and viewing from legal aspect, she may turn out not to be a
1678:- decency. Ug, I cant believe this is even being debated.
731:, this question is not more valid, but Jessi Slaughter is
594:
at least for now. The best argument I see put forth is
473:
and explain which of the criteria the nomination meets.
1468:
without respect to any common sense or anything else. –
1229:
156:
152:
148:
218:
974:
concerns in mind. It discusses the broader impact of
1230:
waited several days after the initial coverage began
56:
G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject.
1501:, and don't merge the contents elsewhere, per BLP.
577:is routinely ignored at AfD, so why not here too?
1460:– this is what happens when users blindly follow
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1705:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1186:redirect the person's name to the event article
489:There are zero remaining arguments for deletion
242:Non noteable article. Also, extremely biased.
649:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
232:
8:
880:Speedy delete in the quickest time possible
739:, although I lack knowledge to judge it).
643:
1314:BTW, YouTube has taken the videos down.
947:- Egregious BLP1E, NOTNEWS... do we have
647:: This debate has been included in the
922:Category:Suicides_due_to_cyber-bullying
1597:per CHL, SV, Alison, Malleus et al.
7:
883:. Extremely egregious BLP attack.
294:. It's obvious where this is going.
986:. How is there a violation of the
123:Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case
46:Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case
24:
1265:- what's wrong with you people?
59:(amended by closer - see below)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
729:cyberbullying-induced suicides
1:
1392:: What Alison said above. --
1236:interview aired. I took the
1180:This is hardly a "textbook"
1160:predictions to the contrary
1109:I think this is covered by
1722:
1263:Kill it with fire, already
1688:14:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1671:13:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1663:Santa Claus of the Future
1642:13:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1622:12:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1618:Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs
1608:12:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1590:12:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1573:12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1548:12:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1525:12:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1510:11:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1490:11:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1473:08:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1453:08:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1432:08:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1402:07:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1383:09:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1357:07:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1339:07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1324:07:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1307:05:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1290:04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1250:04:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1220:04:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1202:04:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1192:is deeply unappreciated.
1172:03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1151:03:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1122:03:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1102:03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1071:04:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1055:04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1040:04:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1018:03:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1001:03:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
961:02:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
934:02:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
912:01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
893:01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
868:01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
854:01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
836:00:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
813:23:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
799:02:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
785:20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
766:18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
749:12:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
708:04:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
683:03:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
664:02:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
635:02:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
613:00:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
585:22:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
567:21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
549:21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
526:20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
504:20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
483:19:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
461:18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
438:18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
424:18:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
397:18:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
371:18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
321:18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
283:18:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
261:18:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
110:14:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
97:14:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
72:14:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
1698:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1555:as classic examples of
1517:this tabloid bullshit.
469:You might like to read
334:San Francisco Chronicle
1224:With all due respect,
976:the cyberbullying case
920:Yes, this is bad, see
403:to internet pedophiles
949:WP:STEAMINGPILEOFSHIT
696:think of the children
471:Knowledge:Speedy keep
328:Very notable by now.
1234:Good Morning America
1028:to the event article
600:Good Morning America
1458:Very strong delete
558:. Very similar to
1508:
1316:Everard Proudfoot
1100:
1073:
1057:
959:
904:Everard Proudfoot
885:Everard Proudfoot
741:Anticyberbullying
666:
652:
621:That logic fails
523:
112:
1713:
1700:
1619:
1603:
1543:
1538:
1507:
1505:
1486:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1336:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1147:
1142:
1090:
1060:
1044:
955:
653:
524:
519:
422:
420:
410:
395:
391:
387:
384:
369:
368:
365:
359:
352:
259:
257:
247:
237:
236:
222:
174:
164:
146:
103:
94:
69:
34:
1721:
1720:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1703:deletion review
1696:
1617:
1599:
1539:
1534:
1503:
1499:Jessi Slaughter
1497:this title and
1482:
1373:
1371:
1368:
1355:
1334:
1280:
1278:
1275:
1145:
1140:
805:Mercurywoodrose
758:Mercurywoodrose
675:Mercurywoodrose
518:
419:
415:
408:
406:
393:
389:
382:
379:
363:
357:
354:
347:
345:
256:
252:
245:
243:
179:
170:
137:
121:
90:
65:
51:The result was
49:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1719:
1717:
1708:
1707:
1691:
1690:
1673:
1644:
1624:
1610:
1592:
1582:86.145.163.208
1575:
1550:
1527:
1512:
1492:
1475:
1455:
1434:
1404:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1351:
1341:
1326:
1309:
1292:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1175:
1174:
1153:
1124:
1104:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1022:Have you read
964:
963:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
915:
914:
896:
895:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
839:
838:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
801:
752:
751:
717:victim-blaming
710:
685:
667:
640:
639:
638:
637:
616:
615:
588:
587:
569:
552:
551:
529:
528:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
464:
463:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
417:
373:
323:
285:
254:
240:
239:
176:
172:AfD statistics
118:
117:
116:
115:
114:
113:
48:
43:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1718:
1706:
1704:
1699:
1693:
1692:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1677:
1674:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1625:
1623:
1620:
1614:
1611:
1609:
1606:
1604:
1602:
1596:
1593:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1542:
1537:
1531:
1530:Strong delete
1528:
1526:
1523:
1520:
1516:
1513:
1511:
1506:
1500:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1487:
1485:
1479:
1476:
1474:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1456:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1435:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1364:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1345:
1342:
1340:
1337:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1291:
1288:
1286:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1173:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1154:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1143:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1098:
1094:
1087:
1086:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1047:Active Banana
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1010:Active Banana
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
968:
967:
966:
965:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
909:
905:
900:
899:
898:
897:
894:
890:
886:
882:
881:
877:
876:
869:
865:
861:
860:Active Banana
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
846:OldManNeptune
843:
842:
841:
840:
837:
833:
829:
828:Active Banana
825:
822:
821:
814:
810:
806:
802:
800:
796:
792:
791:Active Banana
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
777:OldManNeptune
774:
769:
768:
767:
763:
759:
754:
753:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:public figure
734:
730:
726:
725:Ryan Halligan
722:
718:
714:
711:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
686:
684:
680:
676:
671:
668:
665:
661:
657:
650:
646:
642:
641:
636:
632:
628:
627:Active Banana
624:
620:
619:
618:
617:
614:
610:
606:
605:OldManNeptune
601:
597:
593:
590:
589:
586:
583:
580:
576:
573:
570:
568:
565:
561:
560:Star Wars Kid
557:
554:
553:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
531:
530:
527:
522:
516:
513:
512:
505:
501:
497:
494:
490:
486:
485:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
458:
454:
450:
447:
446:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
425:
421:
413:
411:
404:
400:
399:
398:
392:
385:
377:
374:
372:
366:
360:
353:
351:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
324:
322:
318:
314:
309:
308:WP:NOTABILITY
305:
301:
297:
293:
291:
286:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
262:
258:
250:
248:
235:
231:
228:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:Find sources:
177:
173:
168:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
119:
111:
108:
102:
101:
100:
99:
98:
95:
93:
88:
84:
81:delete, with
80:
76:
75:
74:
73:
70:
68:
63:
60:
57:
54:
47:
44:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1697:
1694:
1675:
1646:
1626:
1612:
1600:
1594:
1577:
1552:
1540:
1535:
1529:
1514:
1494:
1483:
1477:
1457:
1436:
1406:
1389:
1369:
1362:
1343:
1328:
1311:
1294:
1276:
1262:
1242:Ingersollian
1237:
1233:
1214:
1207:
1194:Ingersollian
1185:
1166:
1155:
1138:
1126:
1106:
1063:Ingersollian
1032:Ingersollian
1027:
993:Ingersollian
987:
975:
944:
879:
878:
823:
712:
687:
669:
644:
591:
571:
555:
532:
514:
492:
488:
487:I just read
448:
430:Ingersollian
402:
375:
349:
342:News Limited
325:
313:Ingersollian
296:Ingersollian
288:
266:
241:
229:
223:
215:
208:
202:
196:
190:
180:
89:
87:billinghurst
64:
62:billinghurst
58:
55:
52:
50:
31:
28:
1344:Weak delete
1271:WP: NOTNEWS
988:biographies
984:Parry Aftab
541:Umbralcorax
493:Strong keep
449:Strong Keep
304:User:Crisis
206:free images
1659:WP:DECENCY
1655:WP:NOTNEWS
1561:WP:NOTNEWS
1504:SlimVirgin
1441:WP:NOTNEWS
1420:WP:NOTNEWS
1411:Page Three
1135:WP:NOTNEWS
1115:WP:NOTNEWS
692:WP:NOTNEWS
596:WP:NOTNEWS
575:WP:NOTNEWS
537:WP:NOTNEWS
1484:SB_Johnny
1394:MZMcBride
1335:EyeSerene
1226:five days
1212:Cool Hand
1164:Cool Hand
727:cases of
690:- /yawn,
656:• Gene93k
496:Likeminas
453:Likeminas
390:Notify Me
383:DeltaQuad
1651:WP:BLP1E
1557:WP:BLP1E
1522:Fatuorum
1470:MuZemike
1445:Skinny87
1424:Johnuniq
1416:WP:BLP1E
1312:Comment:
1267:WP:BLP1E
1190:WP:BLP1E
1182:WP:BLP1E
1129:- Fails
1111:WP:BLP1E
1024:WP:BLP1E
972:WP:BLP1E
953:Tony Fox
721:nuisance
475:CIreland
338:CBS News
287:Update:
167:View log
1536:Crohnie
1519:Malleus
1299:Dendlai
1119:AniMate
926:Biophys
824:comment
713:Comment
572:Comment
564:Kafziel
364:scripts
290:WP:SNOW
271:khfan93
212:WP refs
200:scholar
140:protect
135:history
92:sDrewth
67:sDrewth
1676:Delete
1657:, and
1647:Delete
1627:Delete
1613:Delete
1601:Begoon
1595:Delete
1578:Delete
1553:Delete
1515:Delete
1495:Delete
1478:Delete
1437:Delete
1407:Delete
1390:Delete
1329:Delete
1295:Delete
1156:Delete
1131:WP:BLP
1127:Delete
1107:Delete
1006:WP:BLP
957:(arf!)
945:Delete
773:WP:BLP
733:living
688:Delete
409:Crisis
330:Gawker
246:Crisis
184:Google
144:delete
83:WP:BLP
79:WP:IAR
53:Delete
1680:Ceoil
1466:WP:RS
1353:ping!
1146:dαlus
980:4chan
951:yet?
418:Clock
348:Gary
255:Clock
227:JSTOR
188:books
161:views
153:watch
149:links
16:<
1684:talk
1667:talk
1586:talk
1569:talk
1565:Slp1
1559:and
1464:and
1462:WP:V
1449:talk
1428:talk
1418:and
1398:talk
1349:S.G.
1320:talk
1303:talk
1269:and
1246:talk
1216:Luke
1198:talk
1168:Luke
1133:and
1113:and
1097:talk
1067:talk
1051:talk
1036:talk
1014:talk
997:talk
982:and
930:talk
908:talk
889:talk
864:talk
850:talk
832:talk
809:talk
795:talk
781:talk
762:talk
745:talk
704:talk
700:Tarc
679:talk
670:Keep
660:talk
645:Note
631:talk
623:WP:N
609:talk
592:Keep
582:lute
579:Reso
556:Keep
545:talk
533:Keep
515:Keep
500:talk
479:talk
457:talk
434:talk
376:Keep
358:talk
350:King
326:Keep
317:talk
300:talk
292:Keep
267:Keep
220:FENS
194:news
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
1631:Lar
1541:Gal
1488:|
1363:way
1238:GMA
1093:CBM
654:--
277:) (
234:TWL
169:•
165:– (
107:FT2
1686:)
1669:)
1661:.
1653:,
1649:.
1633::
1588:)
1571:)
1451:)
1443:.
1430:)
1422:.
1400:)
1374:is
1322:)
1305:)
1281:is
1248:)
1200:)
1162:.
1141:Dæ
1095:·
1069:)
1053:)
1038:)
1016:)
999:)
932:)
910:)
891:)
866:)
852:)
834:)
811:)
797:)
783:)
764:)
747:)
706:)
681:)
662:)
651:.
633:)
611:)
547:)
521:86
502:)
481:)
459:)
436:)
361:·
340:,
336:,
332:,
319:)
306:,
281:)
214:)
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
1682:(
1665:(
1639:c
1637:/
1635:t
1584:(
1567:(
1447:(
1426:(
1396:(
1378:n
1376:o
1372:l
1370:A
1318:(
1301:(
1285:n
1283:o
1279:l
1277:A
1244:(
1196:(
1099:)
1091:(
1065:(
1049:(
1034:(
1012:(
995:(
928:(
906:(
887:(
862:(
848:(
830:(
807:(
793:(
779:(
760:(
743:(
702:(
677:(
658:(
629:(
607:(
543:(
498:(
477:(
455:(
432:(
416:/
394:\
386:|
380:/
367:)
355:(
315:(
298:(
279:c
275:t
273:(
253:/
238:)
230:·
224:·
216:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
186:(
178:(
175:)
163:)
125:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.