Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (3rd nomination)

3121:

that people would expect to find them in an encyclopedia.) GNG does have some limitations on its usefulness: By manipulating the meaning of the words "multiple", "substantial", "independent" and "reliable", we can pretty much make the GNG guideline mean whatever we want it to. If we do not wish to keep an article, it's usually possible to find some reason to object to the sources. If we want to keep it, is generally possible to find some reason why the sources are adequate. The details of the the way we do this are in the archives of AfDs--and 2 has essentially always been interpreted as sufficiently multiple--the arguments have generally been over whether in some cases one is sufficient. In practice, GNG is well enough accepted here that if in a given case you wish to depart from it, the burden is on you to show a reason why it gives an unsatisfactory result. No reason has been shown here.

2960:"I'm afraid I don't believe it will be possible to explain this to you in a way you will accept, Thargor Orlando. You've nominated this material for deletion three times, and been very vocal on the "delete" side in the debates. I think you're quite strongly invested in this article's removal, and I imagine that whatever I say in the article's defence, you will disagree and think is unacceptable. However, the sourcing does appear to be convincing to all the other debate participants so far, and Knowledge (XXG)'s processes require consensus rather than unanimity, so I'm afraid I don't think it's necessary for me to accept any additional burden of evidence in this case.—S Marshall T/C 10:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC)" 3144:, the issue here is that we barely have one substantial reliable source, contrary to claims made above. The only substantial source is a local news piece in a small newspaper close to where the editor is located, and even that hit the local news section rather than a general news piece. If we're generous, we have one substantial reliable source. That's it. I would implore you to examine the sources more closely and see what the notability is truly hanging on. That it is a republisher of content from noteworthy people doesn't somehow confer notability, either: that claim doesn't exist in our notability guidelines and would open the door to a lot of nonsense. 1684:

neuroscientist John R Moffett) to surreal meanderings like the “Quoth the Pig” series, which uses multimedia and text to ‘express’ the poetic anguish of the much-maligned creature. However, for those who want to hear it straight from the hog’s mouth, satirist Allan Goldstein’s “Swine Flu Hate Speech” is a must-read. He puts himself in the trotters of an indignant pig who proselytises against the “racially” insulting “S word” but with a stoic acceptance of his value in the food chain. “We are being blamed for a virus that has yet to be detected in a single one of our members. Pigs by the million have been slaughtered to no purpose. Good bacon is going to waste.”

3167:

sense; on the other hand, its use in the maximal sense you suggest would give a very abridged encyclopedia in many subject fields (including all publications other than books). The only way to avoid these extremes is to do what in practice we increasingly try to do, which is to make a global or RW-criterion based estimate of the appropriateness of the article for the WP. So, on the basis of the actual significance of the subject to an encyclopedia reader, why do you think it fails to the extent of being nonsense that we should eliminate ?

349:

really is. If we hide the unfinished articles and the obvious problems, in userspace or wherever you want them to be, then we're presenting ourselves as a more professional website than we really are. Knowledge (XXG) already has a serious problem with people trusting us far more than they should. There are strong ethical reasons to have material that's still under construction on view in the mainspace, and I think it's dangerously wrong to pretend otherwise.

3201:, appreciate your thoughtful comments next to your Keep opinion. I still differ in my view, and wanted to reply to what you said. First, I was not looking for a reason to justify keeping or deleting the article, or manipulate the interpretation of GNG, but to impartially determine "does this meet GNG". In my opinion it does not; I only found one source I consider significant coverage. It's a subjective determination though, as you presumably found the same 1142:. Per WP:WEB: "except for...trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site." I don't know how else to explain this to you. It hasn't attracted any real notice, and, as WP:WEB says, "Knowledge (XXG) should not have a separate article on any web content that ...editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content." 31: 499:

imagine that whatever I say in the article's defence, you will disagree and think is unacceptable. However, the sourcing does appear to be convincing to all the other debate participants so far, and Knowledge (XXG)'s processes require consensus rather than unanimity, so I'm afraid I don't think it's necessary for me to accept any additional burden of evidence in this case.—

1424: 1325: 1269: 2774: 3205:

article to provide significant coverage. Second, regarding your idea of applying a common sense alternative to GNG of "notability of contributors", I disagree with that. There are a dozen notability guidelines that cover different types of topics (academic, medical, companies, media, websites, etc.),

1683:

An award-winning political blog that refers to itself as the “the drudge report for progressives”, Opednews has a lengthy section devoted to the swine flu pandemic. The dozens of features range from the latest news to well-considered analyses of the subject (such as “The Real Swine Flu Conspiracy” by

1173:

Even with OpEdNews being covered in more-than-trivial manner in multiple books (which can be added over time and through regular editing), we do not that require other sites dedicate lengthy articles solely to the topic of OpEdNews. As you pointed out... and now back-peddle from... just so long as it

348:

This is Knowledge (XXG), where we're allowed to work on things in the open. It's dangerous and stupid to do otherwise. When we have unfinished articles in the mainspace, and tagged articles and one-sentence articles and other obviously amateurish things, we're openly displaying what Knowledge (XXG)

3102:

to be much more fluid, with no specific number or types or lengths of reliable sources, whereas the argument above seems to be that two sources always meets the multiple independent reliable source requirement because two is "multiple". Different editors interpret GNG differently, but I think such a

2765:

of facts presented in the article. Knowledge (XXG) does not require tomes of coverage. Also ignored by you when carefully explained by Cunard above is that some of these available sources, while not substantive in content are still more-than-trivial in nature... thus meeting the description for such

1497:

I point out the issue with The Intelligencer because it's a local news item. It's trivial even by the points of its own paper and tells us mostly nothing about the site other than basic information. Yes, common sense should be used here, and common sense tells us that no one has found it important

1007:

to lack the pieces necessary to demonstrate notability, and continues to lack the reliable sources necessarily to sustain an article. This isn't about imperfection, this isn't about any of that, but simply that it's not a noteworthy enough article to justify inclusion and lacks the sources to build

498:

I'm afraid I don't believe it will be possible to explain this to you in a way you will accept, Thargor Orlando. You've nominated this material for deletion three times, and been very vocal on the "delete" side in the debates. I think you're quite strongly invested in this article's removal, and I

327:

I don't know why an article that isn't ready to be in mainspace is being put in mainspace, but the problem is that there are not multiple reliable sources to build an article or demonstrate notability. The newsbank piece is literally one sentence in a directory-style op-ed about different websites,

3183:

I don't see how this is actually significant to many readers. It gets relatively few page views according to its own disclosures and the mainstream press has barely noticed its existence. I don't even see a bare minimum to work with here in terms of building an article; the entire thing would end

3120:

A sufficient number of notable contributors does by common sense make a publication notable. (In this case, GNG also, but common sense is the more important consideration, based on the core principle that WP is an encyclopedia == & should therefore contain articles on things significant enough

2383:

I agree! Unfortunately, people have bucked consensus by continuing to bring an article back that doesn't meet our guidelines. The discussion will likely have to be relisted because of the bad faith of editors and the lack of addressing the key points regarding the value and breadth of the sources

2138:

We have discussions just like this to decide one-by-one when there is disagreement. And a closer will decide whether or not other's interpretation of guideline and common sense are valid, not you. If the decision goes against you (as seems likely), I would hope you will respect the consensus result

1927:. The DRV result was as it was simply because no reversible flaw was found in that AFD closure. The DRV was not itself an AFD discussing notability, but when editors speaking up at the DVR spoke about the site meeting inclusion criteria, an improved article was eventually returned to mainspace per 1232:

If notability is established as you say, can you please show the multiple, reliable sources that give this site nontrivial coverage? You claim there are books that do this, can you please cite the ones you believe here for us for review? We don't see eye to eye, but incorrect statements about the

1689:

He noted that OpEdNews provided in-depth coverage of the swine flu epidemic through "dozens of features". Those features take the form of the "latest news" and "well-considered analyses" and "surreal meanderings". Singh discussed a particular piece by satirist Allan Goldstein whose "Swine Flu Hate

1301:

Here's the problem: I've done all this legwork. I've done it months ago. There are no nontrivial mentions in books in your searches, and had you done that search before posting it here, you'd know this. As for the coverage you point out, one is a single sentence, and one is a paragraph, half of

2119:

is that articles lacking multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources do not get articles. The "growing consensus" existed long before I got here. If you don't like the inclusion guidelines of the project, you're free to change them, but saying we should ignore them isn't a quality argument, and one

1659:

Author Theresa Katalinas discussed how OpEdNews was launched on February 28, 2003. She wrote that in 2007, OpEdNews had 500,000 visitors a month, a total of 7 million hits, "a bare-bones operation" operated in a "small college student apartment turned office in Newtown Township", 4,500 registered

1067:

That's fine, but if you're basing your keep on applicable guidelines, and the guidelines do not match up with the reality of this article, where does that lead us? Your points regarding the reliable source guideline have to do with its use as a source, and is not an article inclusion guideline.

3166:

what has already opened the door to an immense amount of nonsense, is the quibbling about the exact applicability of the GNG, which can be unrelated to the actual notability or the merit of the article, but it is true that an even greater amount would be permitted by its exact use in the minimal

1389:

My apologies for asserting that the local interest piece by Katalinas (which is noted by seeing what section it's in at the bottom) was the single line piece. The single line piece is linked above. The Financial Express piece is what I correctly noted as "a paragraph, half of which is about a

379:

I'm just surprised you moved an article into mainspace that doesn't meet our inclusion standards, but that's just me. I would have thought you would have actually kept it userfied until it met our inclusion standards, given the result of the previous AfD and DRV. As for the sources, it's clear

2918:

Common sense tells us this is not a notable web site. Why? It has received basically no notice outside of where it is located. I understand you're exhausted by what's meant to be a discussion, but, unfortunately, when claims are made that run contrary to the facts, questioning must occur.

1789:

article: "Just last week, Monsanto made a splash at OpEdNews.com. The company cross-posted three of its blog posts on the liberal website. Also last week, the site's editor and publisher, Robb Kall, posted a poll for readers asking them if the company should be allowed to cross-post its blog

2160:

The funny thing is that the disagreement is not that there are or are not multiple, non-trivial sources, but that you think it shouldn't matter. That is a problem. And if this somehow survives AfD, it will likely be nominated again, either by me or by someone else, unless those multiple,

1106:." I would think that use by and quotations used in multiple reliable sources meets this criteria. Ii feel sheepish that I overlooked something so obvious. As THAT clinches notability, article content can be carefully supported by information gleaned from OpEdNEws site itself under the 2059:

As your own refusal to accept growing consensus is telling, I think you'd happily support any reasoning as narrow as your own... ignoring that while policy is rarely mutable, guidelines are written on a far softer pallet. One of our cornerstone policies for dealing with them is

1302:

which is about a satirical essay. It's the textbook definition of trivial. Yes, I'm hoping others will chime in. I'm hoping those who chime in with a keep can offer up nontrivial sources that conform to our inclusion guidelines, as they are not forthcoming at present.

2458:

exist. And in case you do not understand, an AFD re-listing happens when there is no clear consensus, and not because the consensus is simply not in your favor nor because others do no wish to argue once their opinions have been made quite clear (even if not you).

2286:

trivial. You disagree, fine. Your repeated claims running counter to the 33-1/2 years of editing experience (372,000+ edits) speaking in support of the article contrary to your 3 years and 10 months (5,400+ edits) notwithstanding, he is not required to respond to a

1102:, and that guidline reminding that "...notable means 'worthy of being noted' or 'attracting notice.' Knowledge (XXG) bases its decision about whether web content is notable enough to justify a separate article on the verifiable evidence that the web content 3084:. Almost all of the references I was able to check that are currently cited in the article provide trivial coverage of the topic, as a minor part of a single sentence. The two articles that much of the above discussion seem to focus on are from 3184:

up being based on the local news piece that is basically a reporter repeating the editor's claims about the site. That even reliable, ultra-partisan news sources haven't found this worthy of being written about should be a major flag for us.

2319:

trivial have been provided, and simply saying "they're not trivial" isn't enough. But this is meant to be a discussion, and you don't want to discuss but simply malign my points, my contributions, and me personally. What does that tell us?

2568:) As the topic can be discussed neutrally and presented in a sourced and encyclopedic manner, these valid questions specifically have to deal with why the topic is worthy of sharing with our readers in some fashion. It is revealing that 1251:

Gee... the book search results are kinda obvious if one clicks the proffered links, but being at work at the moment I am unable to scurry out to the nearest university library with access to hard copy book sources. I hope acceptance of

525:

Duly noted. The record should show that you're unwilling to show how a one sentence line and one paragraph about the website in directory-style newspaper clippings are "non-trivial." I'm not as inflexible on this issue as you think.

3094:. I agree the first provides significant coverage; the second is a single brief paragraph. Even if I accepted both as significant coverage, one of the arguments above is that these two sources thereby satisfy the requirements of 262:

This article was deleted via AfD, endorsed at DRV, userfied, worked on, and has now been moved into article space again even though it continues to lack multiple reliable sources to build an article or demonstrate notability.

1422:

is not exactly some unheard-of backwoods-gazette and has passed the test of being a reliable source. You asked for an independent reliable source offering more-than-trivial information about the site and its founder and were

2798:

The "verifiable fact" is that being built on "expert opinions," whatever that means, means nothing to its notability or being able to meet our guidelines for inclusion. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand our policies

2850:

Those are not article inclusion guidelines, once again. They are about whether something is a useful, reliable source for an article, not whether it should be included. Misusing guidelines does not help your case.

2120:

hopes that others who join this discussion and/or the closing administrator will do their due diligence regarding the weakness of the keep arguments in the context of previous discussions and the site policies.

1196:

sources. Seeing your repeated efforts over the last 10 months to remove this article, I expect you will make it a personal mission to (perhaps impatiently) oversee progress and demand immediate perfection when

973:

may be ignored? If the article is itself be kept neutral, it can be improved over time and through regular editing, and the project is improved by the balance offered by its sourced inclusion. In referring to

764: 1516: 3032:

I think that one thing that isn't going to impress the closer is the sheer quantity of text we've produced on this very simple matter. I respectfully suggest that you allow Thargor Orlando to have the last

1765:

article: "A former managing editor for the online newspaper, OpEdNews, has filed suit against the city of Philadelphia and eight of its police officers, accusing them of violating her constitutional rights."

231: 299:

The problem is not that there aren't sources, it's that they're not actually linked in the article. And this is because Thargor Orlando nominated it for deletion within a few hours of it being returned to

827: 328:

and the financial express piece is similarly so, with a four sentence paragraph more about swine flu essays than the site itself. It's not notable, and we don't have the sources to build an article.

1637: 126: 121: 116: 1320:

A greater problem is that your "legwork" was negative... being done only to discredit, not improve... and now "legwork" must counter that faulty legwork claimed to have been done "months ago".

1724:

OpEdNews is also mentioned in other reliable sources. I list them here for completeness for improving the article, but I explicitly note that I am not using them to argue that OpEdNews passes

2358:. That said, and as myself and numerous others have tried hopelessly to explain how your personal definition of "trivial" is not in the true spirit of improving the project, I will respect 2282:

to everyone who thought the topic worth being written about here on Knowledge (XXG), followed by his writing a carefully considered opinion and explaining in his comment just how they were

1753:

article: "Stillwater's pieces appear on her blog and on the Web site OpEdNews, which according to an e-mail from editor Rob Kall has 700,000 unique visitors in 200 countries each month."

2315:

You don't need to continue responding, but your claims that do not match with the policies and guidelines of this project will be taken into effect. No information as to why these are

3206:

refined over the years to include many alternative criteria to GNG, but they do not include exceptions for notable contributors to a website; in fact the web notability guidelines (

1344:

as a "one-liner". We do not set the editorial policies of reliable sources outside of Knowledge (XXG) nor declare them irrelevant because of a perceived tone or a personal animus.

2684:

Common sense tells us that this topic simply isn't noted enough to sustain an article. No non-trivial sources have been provided, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

2609:

of nontrivial sources that we can use to build an article, thus calling into question the notability. This is not my "POV," this is the requirement of the project on a whole.

1780: 1777:

article: "In another case Cheryl Biren-Wright, a former managing editor for OpEdNews, was arrested while photographing a protest two years ago outside the Franklin Mills Mall."

1984:

It's continually telling that it's not that there's a strong argument for keeping it being presented, but just a lot of essays and bad faith. I don't understand the need for

1536: 1174:"has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners", notability is reasonably established. And being established, there is 3007:

processes work. A re-listing happens when there is no clear consensus, and not because the discussion consensus is not in your favor, nor because others do no wish to argue

2463:

is a policy for a reason. Please leave your political leanings outside the door before walking in and muddying up the floors. And by the way... have you ever actually read

1741:

says: "Homegrown (Newtown, Pa.) OpEdNews runs news stories and sharply smart anti-war/anti-Bush opinion pieces; someone's called it the Drudge Report for people who think."

1390:

satirical essay." This is what we call "trivial coverage." There is no real nontrivial coverage to work with here to support an article or meet our inclusion guidelines.

3055:

I was being kind in thinking a relisting may be appropriate, as the consensus of the site is clear on this matter even if the waters of this discussion have been muddied.

1008:

an encyclopedia article, and you have yet to offer anything to demonstrate otherwise. It keeps getting nominated because it's not appropriate for inclusion at this time.

1556: 2438:

point of view is 'not bad faith. But repeatedly and intentionally accusing experienced and respected editors of bad faith could be considered a problematic violation of

184: 1663:

Katalinas further noted that OpEdNews in 2007 had an "arsenal of tongue-in-cheek blog entries, editorials, political articles and countless anti-Bush opinion pieces".

758: 1474:, in a balanced encyclopedia we can cover cover it neutrally. I hereby apologize to other editors who might swing by and see this back-and-forth as being somewhat 225: 1626: 191: 132: 1640:

was correctly decided in August 2013 because at the time of deletion, no reliable sources were cited in the article and none were mentioned in the AfD debate.

821: 1651: 1418: 352:

As for the sources, thanks to MichaelQSchmidt's work they're plain for anyone to see, so I'm very confident that your nomination on those grounds will fail.—

40: 111: 1701:

Singh's piece consists of 165 words about OpEdNews and its coverage of the swine flu epidemic in 2009. It also provides significant coverage of OpEdNews.

2572:

feel the questions are about "article" notability, and not about the reasonableness of enlightening our readers on a veriable '"topic". I believe your

878:, we do Knowledge (XXG) readers a dis-service by ignoring its existence within its field. In a balanced encyclopedia, all views must be covered, even 1650:– titled "Bucks Web site grabs piece of the online news market: The highly traveled opednews.com joins the ranks of a growing Web news base", this 1046:(use of a site by other sources) may be ignored in determining whether or not inclusion of an article on this topic could improve this project? 591:

Thank you, S Marshall and MichaelQSchmidt, for adding the sources to the article to demonstrate that it passes the general notability guideline.

2450:

here. There is no project-wide demand for perfection of any article other than one with BLP issues. I encourage you to study and understand why

2986:

A relisting seems more appropriate given the conduct of some above and the lack of explanation of why non-trivial sources confer notability.

1822: 1781:

http://www.stltoday.com/business/planting-cyber-seeds-monsanto-s-blog-started-last-month-is/article_00373658-1082-59e4-a4bc-e1088e587792.html

586: 1038:, ignoring my valid question does not make it go away. So to ask just that portion again... is it that you feel the established guidelines 3210:) seem to suggest the opposite: "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it." 1988:

non-noteworthy subject to have an article, but I'm certainly not assuming anything about those who are advocating here. Very strange.

1364:

worthy enough to be repeated and reported and quoted in their own publications. THAT'S a decent determinant of notability even without

2350:

correct voice in an AFD discussion when a majority of long-experienced editors say otherwise, maybe he needs to accept that it is not

1830: 1856: 17: 3262: 2546:

Those things have nothing to do with the notability of the article, nor do they help build an encyclopedia article, so no to both.

2179:

It was very carefully explained by Cunard that more-than-trivial coverage exists and was offered. The sadly "funny thing" is your

3046: 1768: 1466:

or refer to those opinions on their own websites. Even if you personally do not wish it, Knowledge (XXG) is not set in stone and

637: 568: 512: 467: 419: 365: 313: 1713: 874:

even without these other sources not devoting articles solely dedicated to being of or about it. That reliable sources feel

380:

they're trivial mentions, so hopefully better ones come up. As it stands, it clearly doesn't meet the inclusion standards.

673:

Where are the sources that establish notability, then? We've been down this road before, and nothing new has been offered.

3219: 3193: 3178: 3153: 3132: 3112: 3064: 3050: 3023: 2995: 2981: 2928: 2909: 2860: 2841: 2812: 2789: 2693: 2675: 2618: 2592: 2555: 2541: 2483: 2393: 2374: 2329: 2306: 2246: 2225: 2203: 2170: 2151: 2129: 2106: 2050: 2032: 1997: 1975: 1902: 1884: 1848: 1671: 1615: 1594: 1568: 1548: 1528: 1507: 1490: 1399: 1380: 1340: 1311: 1292: 1242: 1225: 1178:. We can improve the article content over time and through regular editing right here on Knowledge (XXG) under under the 1151: 1129: 1085: 1058: 1017: 994: 912: 894: 721: 682: 664: 641: 600: 535: 516: 489: 471: 441: 423: 389: 369: 337: 317: 272: 94: 1709: 779: 621: 157: 152: 3244: 746: 246: 69: 46: 1687:

Singh referred to OpEdNews as "n award-winning political blog" that calls itself "the drudge report for progressives".

1026:

While essays addressed my perception of motivation for your third deletion nomination of this topic within a year, my

161: 1076:, and the like, and perhaps find those notable, reliable sources specifically about the topic to sustain an article. 213: 3085: 1793: 1732: 1647: 288: 1773: 1860: 1264:

is reasonable? And even with a keep looming, I would appreciate hearing from others. Wouldn't you? And y the way,

842: 3189: 3149: 3060: 3020: 2991: 2978: 2924: 2906: 2856: 2838: 2808: 2786: 2689: 2672: 2614: 2589: 2551: 2538: 2480: 2389: 2371: 2325: 2303: 2260: 2243: 2221: 2200: 2166: 2148: 2125: 2103: 2046: 2029: 1993: 1972: 1898: 1816: 1611: 1503: 1487: 1395: 1377: 1307: 1289: 1238: 1222: 1147: 1126: 1081: 1055: 1013: 991: 908: 891: 703: 678: 580: 531: 485: 437: 385: 333: 268: 144: 2627:

Non-trivial sources have been presented and yet demeaned and dismissed by you... and repeating, Knowledge (XXG)

1209:, and will thank you again. Can we at least agree that we do not see eye-to-eye on this issue and so cease this 809: 432:

Basically true, although no arguments or evidence to show the error in my claims have been presented thus far.

84: 2874: 2826: 2723: 2644: 2573: 2526: 2513: 2188: 2084: 1956: 1948: 1920: 1459: 1353: 1202: 1043: 970: 942: 879: 875: 871: 1785: 1737: 740: 2288: 1852: 1725: 1705: 2601:

Anything can be "discussed neutrally and presented in a sourced and encyclopedic manner." The issue with

207: 3003:

was quite correct in his observations and statements, but even in this you seem to misunderstand how the

2822: 2711: 2498: 2451: 2234:

He presented it above and clarified when you claimed in was not SIGCOV. I cannot teach the blind to see.

2076: 2020:

keep. Would you respond in kind to any "deletes" should they arrive before this is discussion is closed?

1940: 1455: 1447: 1361: 1257: 1198: 1182: 1110: 1039: 979: 966: 867: 863: 3240: 1756: 65: 1643:

Vacate closure because I have found two reliable sources that provide significant coverage of OpEdNews:

1451: 1210: 1186: 1175: 1114: 736: 3185: 3145: 3056: 3042: 3013: 2987: 2971: 2920: 2899: 2852: 2831: 2804: 2779: 2770:. That said, I have real-world concerns that need my attention. So, bye for now and have a nice day. 2685: 2665: 2610: 2582: 2547: 2531: 2473: 2435: 2385: 2364: 2321: 2296: 2256: 2236: 2217: 2193: 2162: 2141: 2121: 2096: 2042: 2022: 1989: 1965: 1932: 1894: 1812: 1805: 1607: 1499: 1480: 1391: 1370: 1303: 1282: 1234: 1215: 1143: 1119: 1104:

has attracted the notice of reliable sources unrelated to the web content, its authors, or its owners

1077: 1048: 1009: 984: 904: 884: 803: 696: 674: 633: 576: 562: 527: 508: 481: 463: 433: 415: 381: 361: 329: 309: 282: 264: 203: 1698:

Katalinas' article provides roughly 700 words of coverage of OpEdNews. This is substantial coverage.

1099: 962: 2889:

possible consideration flags in the face of the many policies and guidelines and essays written to

2446:

even articles seen (by you) as weak can be brought to life and worked on. We're building something

835: 772: 660: 239: 2767: 2742:

decide that our readers shouldn't be given neutral facts about OpEdNews. The site does not itself

2731: 2359: 2294:. A keep seems destined, and I am myself quite tired of my futile attempts to explain. Thank you. 1471: 958: 950: 934: 926: 786: 655:. Notability now sufficiently established by the sources. Information about this belongs here.-- 2271: 1924: 1876: 1864: 1193: 713: 611: 592: 2577: 2464: 2355: 2184: 1606:, can you please point out the "loads of secondary source coverage," as no one else has so far? 1475: 1436: 799: 253: 1190: 2212:

So where is the nontrivial coverage? Cunard hasn't presented it yet, that user has presented

1842: 1769:

http://articles.philly.com/2011-10-07/news/30253631_1_police-officer-videotape-violent-arrests

1564: 1544: 1524: 1427:. That it it began with discussion of a world-interest-issue, can be read world-wide, and yet 1330: 58:

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

3239:

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

2894: 2870: 2755: 2660: 2656: 2565: 2468: 2460: 2343: 2291: 2279: 2180: 2010: 1952: 1498:

to cover this topic in depth, and that it's not sensible to include this in an encyclopedia.

1321: 954: 922: 691: 64:

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

2636: 1880: 1868: 1201:. And if "kept" as a result of this AFD, I expect you will bring the topic back to to AFD a 717: 615: 596: 3207: 3099: 3095: 3081: 3004: 2890: 2882: 2751: 2739: 2652: 2648: 2569: 2522: 2443: 2439: 2275: 2091: 2068: 2061: 2014: 1960: 1928: 1467: 1440: 1261: 1253: 1206: 1095: 1073: 1031: 975: 946: 849: 3215: 3108: 3034: 3000: 2354:

Knowledge (XXG), it is everyone's. Behavioral guideline instructs that is it unhelpful to

2191:

if consensus closes against your wishes. That is the root problem here. Have a good day.

1749: 1744: 1265: 625: 558: 500: 455: 407: 353: 301: 1345: 752: 1590: 1580: 656: 2762: 2719: 2707: 2509: 2505: 2494: 2080: 2072: 1944: 1936: 1444: 1428: 1349: 1348:

giving coverage are reliable sources giving coverage. Period. We may also look to the

1179: 1107: 1069: 1035: 219: 3256: 3202: 3174: 3128: 3091: 1761: 1667: 1335: 1275: 294: 148: 2746:

to make headlines or meet your non-guideline requirement for "substantial" coverage

1838: 1560: 1540: 1520: 2761:

is that reliable sources have been offered that offer the policy mandated neutral

2447: 480:

Perhaps you can explain how those two sources you linked above are "non-trivial."

178: 1794:

http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/117CE0758494F940/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A

1733:

http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/0F9FF58EA8711C82/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A

1716:

of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

1648:

http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/1173106EF98EC1A8/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A

815: 289:

http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/1173106EF98EC1A8/0D7C12F5A8A2A86A

2631:

require entire tomes dedicated to any topic for it to be found notable through

1439:". Though you might not agree, other editors here might certainly use a little 346:

It's not your role to decide whether the article is "ready to be in mainspace".

3211: 3104: 3008: 2966: 2041:

Would the deleted be based on the same misguided reasoning? If so, then yes.

2255:

Actually, I pointed out that they were trivial. He has not since responded.

285:

found, linked for you, and analysed in considerable detail at the DRV, were:-

1601: 1585: 961:, I did minor work on the topic you appear so worried about being part of a 1579:. Loads of secondary source coverage. Participation from journalist who is 1030:

is dependent upon applicable guideline, NOT essay nor personal opinion. As

3198: 3169: 3139: 3123: 1324:

becomes an issue almost of an intent to mislead others when dismissing a

140: 100: 2655:

nor common sense nor case-by-case consensus. We need not all agree, but

1833:: "OEN. When improved enough, will request a return and hist merge". I 1274:

existed and brief but non-trivial information was contained in such as

933:

the article you nominated, and more yet are available through diligent

3011:

when their honest opinions are quite clear to everyone (except you).

1893:

The DRV endorsed the closure, and these are not non-trivial mentions.

866:, itself quoted in and referred to in multiple reliable sources meets 1943:

of a great number of notables, to completely ignore that the site is

1757:

http://newsitem.com/opinion/former-editor-sues-philadelphia-1.1208520

982:, I note that immediate perfection is not required with ANY article. 1368:

itself being a sole and focused topic of that coverage. Thank you.

2635:

less-than-substantive yet more-than-trivial sources (as offered by

1955:

with any who does not see it your way. Is this perhaps a sign of a

2730:

common sense to demand substantial coverage when we have suitable

2525:, and I would certainly hope you will accede to consensus and not 2094:

of being written of within these pages to enlighten our readers.

3233:

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

2064:. Improving this project for its readers takes precedence over 1670:– titled "What the world is reading", Asavari Singh's May 2009 1638:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (2nd nomination)

3080:

Did not find significant coverage in reliable sources to meet

2885:

truly means. Such insistence that one's own viewpoint is the

2455: 1923:

through enough lessor more-than-trivial sources as offered by

1708:, which says "If a topic has received significant coverage in 25: 2893:. Sorry, but you've exhausted me. Closer, have fun with this 1517:

list of United States of America-related deletion discussions

1657:

article provides in-depth substantial coverage of OpEdNews.

1268:

did previously point out that non-trivial coverage such as

2651:

may apply". This tells us that guidelines do not overrule

1855:

requires significant work to conform to Knowledge (XXG)'s

1627:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2014 April 13#OpEdNews

3103:

literal, most minimal interpretation ignores its intent.

1677:

article provides a paragraph of coverage about OpEdNews:

2881:, you show an unfortunate misunderstanding of just what 2965:

After 7 days, no delete opinions beyond those repeated

1834: 1826: 1745:

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/ci_11131915

1726:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline

1706:

Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline

1660:

members, 25 volunteer editors, and 500 regular writers.

1003:

Your essay is noted, but the issue is that the article

930: 709: 572: 174: 170: 166: 2829:? I cannot teach what someone refuses to learn. Bye. 834: 771: 238: 2877:

considerations. Well-meaning as you might be in your

2342:

learn is to respect consensus in discussions and not

1213:? Personally, I'd like to hear opinions from others. 2639:) and though case-by-case consensus. While helpful, 454:

the evidence doesn't mean it hasn't been presented.—

1959:? Will there be a moment where you would consider 1863:, time which I am unable to provide at the moment. 848: 785: 252: 2278:. What I observe took place was his reading your 1668:http://www.financialexpress.com/story-print/457709 965:. Is it that you feel the established guidelines 295:http://www.financialexpress.com/story-print/457709 2356:disrupt the process by beating something to death 1138:The mentions are trivial ones, which is why they 133:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_review/Log/2014_April_13 72:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3247:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1837:Michael, asking him to work on the article with 1458:share their experts opinions on the website and 957:, are not valid deletion rationales, after some 2958: 2726:in numerous reliable sources elsewhere. It is 1678: 1537:list of News media-related deletion discussions 127:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (4th nomination) 122:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (3rd nomination) 117:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (2nd nomination) 1720:Mentions of OpEdNews in other reliable sources 1470:apply. Even if some feel liberal opinions are 406:inclusion standards is not for you to decide.— 2216:coverage. Where is the nontrivial coverage? 1557:list of Websites-related deletion discussions 8: 1555:Note: This debate has been included in the 1535:Note: This debate has been included in the 1515:Note: This debate has been included in the 1435:, kinda pokes holes in a spurious claim of " 2139:reached at THIS discussion for THIS topic. 1354:multiple sources outside of Knowledge (XXG) 1042:(covering the written work of experts) and 862:. A website containing articles written by 2083:as being widely quoted and referred to in 1800:piece discusses OpEdNews founder Rob Kall. 1704:These two articles allow OpEdNews to pass 1554: 1534: 1514: 1478:. Elucidation was the goal, not oration. 571:), the sources were found and analyzed by 864:persons expert or notable in their fields 945:to delete this article topic, and while 2734:coverage you chose to denigrate. It is 1935:to disagree here, to completely ignore 402:inclusion standards. Whether it meets 398:Well, the article clearly doesn't meet 109: 45:For an explanation of the process, see 610:Oh! I'm sorry for getting that wrong, 2714:of a great number of notables, It is 2529:if or when this is closed as "keep". 1634:Vacate closure and permit recreation. 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2771: 2442:. Like it or (obviously) not, under 1094:Thank you for pointing out it meets 967:covering the written work of experts 2514:numerous reliable sources elsewhere 1949:numerous reliable sources elsewhere 1233:alleged sources must be addressed. 1034:is not the same sort of mandate as 107: 2643:guidelines are "best treated with 2504:Do you feel it totally irrelevant 2493:Do you feel it totally irrelevant 1831:User:MichaelQSchmidt/workspace/OEN 1460:why so many, many reliable sources 24: 2969:by the nominator Time to close. 2957:An illuminating thing said here: 1629:(which I have reproduced below): 2772: 2710:that the site is built upon the 2497:that the site is built upon the 2346:. When any editor feels his the 2338:One of the first things editors 1939:that the site is built upon the 1690:Speech" is called a "must-read". 1583:winner, among other notables. — 29: 2576:of this topic will be seen as 1735:– this article by Ed Weiner of 47:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 2501:of a great number of notables? 1334:as a "satirical essay" or the 971:use of a site by other sources 876:it worth mentioning or quoting 112:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews 41:deletion review on 2014 May 19 1: 2871:definitely disagree yet again 2510:itself referred to and quoted 2161:non-trivial sources surface. 1951:, and to fully disagree with 1945:itself referred to and quoted 1913:does not require entire tomes 1336:165 word multi-sentence piece 1205:with similar results... so I 1203:fourth or fifth or sixth time 2071:that the topic of a website 1871:) 09:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC) 1695:Analysis of the two articles 1199:none is expected or required 1068:What you want to look at is 81:. Obvious consensus to keep 2718:common sense to ignore the 2706:common sense to ignore the 2434:(sigh) Not agreeing with a 2077:opinions of notable experts 2009:You have made it a special 1356:have deemed the content of 3279: 2270:No need that he do so and 1931:. And yes, I fully expect 1798:Bucks County Courier Times 1774:Philadelphia Media Network 1655:(Doylestown, Pennsylvania) 903:So where are the sources? 2490:And as yet unanswered... 2085:numerous reliable sources 3263:Pages at deletion review 3236:Please do not modify it. 3220:23:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 3194:21:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 3179:20:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 3154:17:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 3133:16:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC) 3113:21:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 3065:18:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 3051:18:04, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 3024:17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 2996:13:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 2982:05:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 2929:12:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 2910:01:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 2873:, but they can be under 2861:19:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2842:19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2821:Unfamiliar are you with 2813:17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2790:17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2722:that the site is itself 2694:16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2676:16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2619:15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2593:14:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2556:12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2542:23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 2484:17:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 2394:13:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 2375:05:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC) 2330:12:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 2307:01:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC) 2247:19:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2226:17:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2204:17:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2171:16:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2152:16:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2130:15:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2107:14:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2051:12:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 2033:23:57, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 1998:19:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 1976:18:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 1903:12:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 1885:07:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 1827:wrote in an edit summary 1328:by Theresa Katalinas in 1140:don't meet the guideline 722:07:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 706:14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 642:13:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 601:07:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 450:The fact that you don't 95:23:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC) 61:Please do not modify it. 1851:). The userspace draft 1786:St. Louis Post-Dispatch 1738:Philadelphia Daily News 1616:21:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1595:20:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1569:00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1549:00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1529:00:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1508:11:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1491:03:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC) 1400:20:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1381:20:16, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1312:19:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1293:19:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1243:18:48, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1226:18:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1152:17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1130:17:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1086:17:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1059:16:53, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 1018:16:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 995:15:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 913:14:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 895:14:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 683:14:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 665:14:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 536:11:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 517:10:56, 9 May 2014 (UTC) 490:21:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 472:21:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 442:19:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 424:19:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 390:17:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 370:17:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 338:12:56, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 318:12:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 273:12:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC) 2962: 2724:referred to and quoted 2578:pointy and tendentious 2362:and wait for a close. 2344:bludgeon the processes 1875: 1686: 106:AfDs for this article: 2891:build an encyclopedia 2649:occasional exceptions 1853:User:Robkall/OpEdNews 1673:The Financial Express 1630: 1468:occasional exceptions 1341:The Financial Express 963:balanced encyclopedia 708:Added signature from 2869:Sorry, and you will 2766:as set by guideline 2263:) 19:33, 13 May 2014 1861:verifiability policy 1806:User:MichaelQSchmidt 283:User:MichaelQSchmidt 2663:are decent essays. 2527:nominate a 4th time 2506:the verifiable fact 2495:the verifiable fact 1957:pointy renomination 1919:topic for it to be 1811:Experienced editor 1437:local interest only 1280:long before I did. 1625:per my comment at 1431:information about 1260:and just a little 1207:encourage patience 77:The result was 3203:Financial Express 3092:Financial Express 3087:The Intelligencer 3049: 2508:that the site is 2181:refusal to accept 1857:neutrality policy 1653:The Intelligencer 1571: 1551: 1531: 1419:The Intelligencer 1331:The Intelligencer 1326:500+ word article 1277:Financial Express 1271:The Intelligencer 1117:. Again, thanks. 724: 640: 515: 470: 422: 368: 316: 281:The sources that 93: 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 3270: 3238: 3143: 3041: 3039: 3016: 2974: 2902: 2834: 2782: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2738:common sense to 2668: 2585: 2534: 2476: 2367: 2299: 2239: 2196: 2144: 2099: 2069:personal feeling 2025: 1968: 1911:Knowledge (XXG) 1710:reliable sources 1605: 1483: 1462:choose to quote 1373: 1362:numerous experts 1346:Reliable sources 1285: 1218: 1122: 1051: 987: 887: 880:if not respected 853: 852: 838: 790: 789: 775: 707: 699: 632: 630: 507: 505: 462: 460: 414: 412: 360: 358: 308: 306: 257: 256: 242: 194: 182: 164: 92: 90: 87: 82: 63: 33: 32: 26: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3245:deletion review 3234: 3186:Thargor Orlando 3146:Thargor Orlando 3137: 3057:Thargor Orlando 3035: 3014: 3001:User:S Marshall 2988:Thargor Orlando 2972: 2921:Thargor Orlando 2900: 2853:Thargor Orlando 2832: 2805:Thargor Orlando 2780: 2773: 2720:verifiable fact 2712:expert opinions 2708:verifiable fact 2686:Thargor Orlando 2666: 2611:Thargor Orlando 2583: 2566:dance continues 2548:Thargor Orlando 2532: 2521:Perhaps we can 2499:expert opinions 2474: 2436:Thargor Orlando 2386:Thargor Orlando 2365: 2322:Thargor Orlando 2297: 2257:Thargor Orlando 2237: 2218:Thargor Orlando 2194: 2163:Thargor Orlando 2142: 2122:Thargor Orlando 2097: 2075:as sharing the 2043:Thargor Orlando 2023: 1990:Thargor Orlando 1966: 1941:expert opinions 1895:Thargor Orlando 1813:MichaelQSchmidt 1750:Oakland Tribune 1608:Thargor Orlando 1599: 1500:Thargor Orlando 1481: 1456:so many experts 1392:Thargor Orlando 1371: 1304:Thargor Orlando 1283: 1266:User:S Marshall 1235:Thargor Orlando 1216: 1144:Thargor Orlando 1120: 1078:Thargor Orlando 1049: 1010:Thargor Orlando 985: 905:Thargor Orlando 885: 795: 732: 697: 675:Thargor Orlando 626: 577:MichaelQSchmidt 528:Thargor Orlando 501: 482:Thargor Orlando 456: 434:Thargor Orlando 408: 382:Thargor Orlando 354: 330:Thargor Orlando 302: 265:Thargor Orlando 199: 190: 155: 139: 136: 131: 104: 88: 85: 83: 70:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3276: 3274: 3266: 3265: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3115: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3053: 3027: 3026: 2963: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2913: 2912: 2875:WP:COMMONSENSE 2864: 2863: 2845: 2844: 2827:WP:USEBYOTHERS 2816: 2815: 2793: 2792: 2697: 2696: 2679: 2678: 2622: 2621: 2596: 2595: 2559: 2558: 2518: 2517: 2502: 2487: 2486: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2378: 2377: 2333: 2332: 2310: 2309: 2265: 2264: 2250: 2249: 2229: 2228: 2207: 2206: 2183:that fact and 2174: 2173: 2155: 2154: 2133: 2132: 2117:of the project 2115:The consensus 2110: 2109: 2054: 2053: 2036: 2035: 2001: 2000: 1979: 1978: 1906: 1905: 1888: 1887: 1874: 1873: 1835:have contacted 1802: 1801: 1791: 1778: 1766: 1754: 1742: 1693: 1692: 1682: 1681: 1665: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1581:Pulitzer Prize 1573: 1572: 1552: 1532: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1443:and under the 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1384: 1383: 1360:as written by 1315: 1314: 1296: 1295: 1246: 1245: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1133: 1132: 1089: 1088: 1062: 1061: 1044:WP:USEBYOTHERS 1021: 1020: 998: 997: 937:in a modified 927:(easily found) 916: 915: 898: 897: 872:WP:USEBYOTHERS 856: 855: 792: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 686: 685: 668: 667: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 644: 605: 604: 555: 554: 553: 552: 551: 550: 549: 548: 547: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 520: 519: 493: 492: 475: 474: 445: 444: 427: 426: 393: 392: 374: 373: 341: 340: 322: 321: 260: 259: 196: 135: 130: 129: 124: 119: 114: 108: 105: 103: 98: 75: 74: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3275: 3264: 3261: 3260: 3258: 3248: 3246: 3242: 3237: 3231: 3221: 3217: 3213: 3209: 3204: 3200: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3171: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3155: 3151: 3147: 3141: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3125: 3119: 3116: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3088: 3083: 3079: 3076: 3075: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3038: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3025: 3022: 3021: 3018: 3017: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2980: 2979: 2976: 2975: 2968: 2964: 2961: 2956: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2911: 2908: 2907: 2904: 2903: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2839: 2836: 2835: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2791: 2788: 2787: 2784: 2783: 2769: 2764: 2760: 2758: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2733: 2732:"significant" 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2677: 2674: 2673: 2670: 2669: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2594: 2591: 2590: 2587: 2586: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2535: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2503: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2491: 2489: 2488: 2485: 2482: 2481: 2478: 2477: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2432: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2376: 2373: 2372: 2369: 2368: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2308: 2305: 2304: 2301: 2300: 2293: 2290: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2276:to not engage 2273: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2248: 2245: 2244: 2241: 2240: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2205: 2202: 2201: 2198: 2197: 2190: 2187:to encourage 2186: 2182: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2146: 2145: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2118: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2100: 2093: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2067: 2063: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2030: 2027: 2026: 2019: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1970: 1969: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1921:found notable 1918: 1915:dedicated to 1914: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1872: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1850: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1821: 1818: 1814: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1799: 1795: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1782: 1779: 1776: 1775: 1770: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762:The News-Item 1758: 1755: 1752: 1751: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1734: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1722: 1721: 1717: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1699: 1696: 1691: 1685: 1676: 1674: 1669: 1666: 1664: 1661: 1656: 1654: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1641: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1587: 1582: 1578: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1533: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1489: 1488: 1485: 1484: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1421: 1420: 1416: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1382: 1379: 1378: 1375: 1374: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1290: 1287: 1286: 1279: 1278: 1273: 1272: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1219: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1172: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1131: 1128: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1116: 1112: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 996: 993: 992: 989: 988: 981: 977: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 943:third attempt 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 919: 918: 917: 914: 910: 906: 902: 901: 900: 899: 896: 893: 892: 889: 888: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 858: 857: 851: 847: 844: 841: 837: 833: 829: 826: 823: 820: 817: 814: 811: 808: 805: 801: 798: 797:Find sources: 793: 788: 784: 781: 778: 774: 770: 766: 763: 760: 757: 754: 751: 748: 745: 742: 738: 735: 734:Find sources: 730: 723: 719: 715: 711: 705: 704: 701: 700: 693: 690: 689: 688: 687: 684: 680: 676: 672: 671: 670: 669: 666: 662: 658: 654: 651: 650: 643: 639: 635: 631: 629: 623: 620: 617: 613: 609: 608: 607: 606: 603: 602: 598: 594: 588: 585: 582: 578: 574: 570: 567: 564: 560: 557: 556: 537: 533: 529: 524: 523: 522: 521: 518: 514: 510: 506: 504: 497: 496: 495: 494: 491: 487: 483: 479: 478: 477: 476: 473: 469: 465: 461: 459: 453: 449: 448: 447: 446: 443: 439: 435: 431: 430: 429: 428: 425: 421: 417: 413: 411: 405: 404:the project's 401: 397: 396: 395: 394: 391: 387: 383: 378: 377: 376: 375: 372: 371: 367: 363: 359: 357: 350: 345: 344: 343: 342: 339: 335: 331: 326: 325: 324: 323: 320: 319: 315: 311: 307: 305: 297: 296: 291: 290: 284: 280: 277: 276: 275: 274: 270: 266: 255: 251: 248: 245: 241: 237: 233: 230: 227: 224: 221: 218: 215: 212: 209: 205: 202: 201:Find sources: 197: 193: 189: 186: 180: 176: 172: 168: 163: 159: 154: 150: 146: 142: 138: 137: 134: 128: 125: 123: 120: 118: 115: 113: 110: 102: 99: 97: 96: 91: 80: 73: 71: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3235: 3232: 3168: 3122: 3117: 3086: 3077: 3036: 3019: 3012: 2977: 2970: 2959: 2905: 2898: 2897:discussion. 2886: 2878: 2837: 2830: 2823:WP:RSOPINION 2800: 2785: 2778: 2763:verification 2756: 2747: 2743: 2735: 2727: 2715: 2703: 2671: 2664: 2645:common sense 2640: 2632: 2628: 2606: 2603:this article 2602: 2588: 2581: 2537: 2530: 2523:stop dancing 2479: 2472: 2452:WP:IMPERFECT 2370: 2363: 2351: 2347: 2339: 2316: 2302: 2295: 2283: 2242: 2235: 2213: 2199: 2192: 2189:renomination 2185:your promise 2147: 2140: 2116: 2102: 2095: 2088: 2065: 2028: 2021: 2017: 2006: 1985: 1971: 1964: 1916: 1912: 1845: 1819: 1810: 1804: 1803: 1797: 1784: 1772: 1760: 1748: 1736: 1723: 1719: 1718: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1694: 1688: 1680:Opednews.com 1679: 1672: 1662: 1658: 1652: 1642: 1636: 1633: 1622: 1584: 1576: 1486: 1479: 1463: 1448:WP:ABOUTSELF 1441:common sense 1432: 1417: 1414: 1376: 1369: 1365: 1357: 1339: 1329: 1288: 1281: 1276: 1270: 1258:WP:IMPERFECT 1221: 1214: 1189:, and those 1183:WP:ABOUTSELF 1170: 1139: 1125: 1118: 1111:WP:ABOUTSELF 1103: 1054: 1047: 1040:WP:RSOPINION 1027: 1004: 990: 983: 980:WP:IMPERFECT 939:Find sources 938: 931:now sourcing 890: 883: 868:WP:RSOPINION 859: 845: 839: 831: 824: 818: 812: 806: 796: 782: 776: 768: 761: 755: 749: 743: 733: 702: 695: 652: 627: 618: 590: 583: 565: 502: 457: 451: 409: 403: 399: 355: 351: 347: 303: 298: 292: 286: 278: 261: 249: 243: 235: 228: 222: 216: 210: 200: 187: 78: 76: 60: 57: 36: 2740:arbitrarily 2637:User:Cunard 2564:(Sigh, the 2384:provided. 2272:User:Cunard 1925:User:Cunard 1714:independent 1454:wonder why 1452:WP:NEWSBLOG 1211:WP:BLUDGEON 1187:WP:NEWSBLOG 1115:WP:NEWSBLOG 941:. In your 822:free images 759:free images 300:mainspace.— 226:free images 3037:S Marshall 3009:ad nauseum 2967:ad nauseum 2574:fourth AFD 2092:not worthy 2081:verifiable 2073:verifiable 1352:fact that 1350:verifiable 1100:WP:WEBCRIT 1098:and under 628:S Marshall 559:S Marshall 503:S Marshall 458:S Marshall 410:S Marshall 356:S Marshall 304:S Marshall 86:the panda 3241:talk page 3098:. I take 3015:Schmidt, 2973:Schmidt, 2901:Schmidt, 2833:Schmidt, 2781:Schmidt, 2768:WP:SIGCOV 2667:Schmidt, 2584:Schmidt, 2533:Schmidt, 2475:Schmidt, 2448:something 2366:Schmidt, 2360:WP:KETTLE 2298:Schmidt, 2280:responses 2238:Schmidt, 2195:Schmidt, 2143:Schmidt, 2098:Schmidt, 2024:Schmidt, 2007:Really ?? 1967:Schmidt, 1953:yet again 1790:entries." 1712:that are 1561:• Gene93k 1541:• Gene93k 1521:• Gene93k 1482:Schmidt, 1476:pointless 1425:given one 1372:Schmidt, 1284:Schmidt, 1217:Schmidt, 1121:Schmidt, 1050:Schmidt, 1005:continues 986:Schmidt, 959:WP:BEFORE 951:WP:BELONG 886:Schmidt, 698:Schmidt, 657:Arxiloxos 575:, not by 66:talk page 3257:Category 3243:or in a 2895:looooong 2629:does not 2465:WP:POINT 2274:is wise 2087:.... in 2015:question 1937:the fact 1849:contribs 1823:contribs 1464:OpEdNews 1445:policies 1433:OpEdnews 1429:verifies 1366:OpEdNews 1358:OpEdNews 1191:multiple 1180:policies 1176:no hurry 1108:policies 622:contribs 587:contribs 569:contribs 185:View log 141:OpEdNews 101:OpEdNews 68:or in a 2757:Ignored 2752:website 2661:WP:BLUD 2657:WP:IDHT 2605:is the 2469:WP:BLUD 2461:WP:NPOV 2214:trivial 2089:somehow 1839:Robkall 1796:– this 1675:(India) 1322:WP:IDHT 955:WP:PPOV 925:? More 923:WP:BLUD 828:WP refs 816:scholar 765:WP refs 753:scholar 692:WP:BLUD 232:WP refs 220:scholar 158:protect 153:history 3208:WP:WEB 3100:WP:GNG 3096:WP:GNG 3082:WP:GNG 3078:Delete 3033:word.— 2883:WP:IAR 2879:stance 2759:by you 2702:It is 2653:POLICY 2647:, and 2633:enough 2444:WP:WIP 2440:WP:CIV 2340:should 2062:WP:IAR 1961:WP:DTS 1929:WP:CCC 1877:Cunard 1865:Cunard 1472:fringe 1262:WP:AGF 1254:WP:WIP 1096:WP:WEB 1074:WP:WEB 1032:WP:GNG 976:WP:WIP 947:WP:JNN 935:before 800:Google 737:Google 714:Cunard 612:Cunard 593:Cunard 452:accept 204:Google 162:delete 3212:Agyle 3175:talk 3129:talk 3105:Agyle 2801:again 2289:brick 2018:every 2011:point 921:More 843:JSTOR 804:books 780:JSTOR 741:books 279:Keep. 247:JSTOR 208:books 192:Stats 179:views 171:watch 167:links 16:< 3216:talk 3190:talk 3150:talk 3118:Keep 3109:talk 3090:and 3061:talk 2992:talk 2925:talk 2887:only 2857:talk 2809:talk 2744:have 2690:talk 2659:and 2615:talk 2607:lack 2552:talk 2454:and 2390:talk 2348:only 2326:talk 2292:wall 2261:talk 2222:talk 2167:talk 2126:talk 2079:and 2047:talk 1994:talk 1986:this 1899:talk 1881:talk 1869:talk 1859:and 1843:talk 1817:talk 1623:Keep 1612:talk 1602:Cirt 1591:talk 1586:Cirt 1577:Keep 1565:talk 1545:talk 1525:talk 1504:talk 1450:and 1396:talk 1308:talk 1239:talk 1194:book 1185:and 1148:talk 1113:and 1082:talk 1070:WP:N 1036:WP:V 1028:Keep 1014:talk 978:and 969:and 929:are 909:talk 870:and 860:Keep 836:FENS 810:news 773:FENS 747:news 718:talk 710:here 679:talk 661:talk 653:Keep 616:talk 597:talk 581:talk 563:talk 532:talk 486:talk 438:talk 400:your 386:talk 334:talk 269:talk 240:FENS 214:news 175:logs 149:talk 145:edit 79:keep 3199:DGG 3170:DGG 3140:DGG 3124:DGG 3005:AFD 2825:or 2754:. 2736:not 2728:not 2716:not 2704:not 2641:all 2580:. 2570:you 2512:in 2471:? 2467:or 2456:WIP 2352:his 2317:not 2284:not 2066:any 2013:to 1963:? 1947:in 1933:you 1917:any 1829:at 1338:in 850:TWL 787:TWL 624:).— 293:2) 287:1) 254:TWL 183:– ( 3259:: 3218:) 3192:) 3177:) 3152:) 3131:) 3111:) 3063:) 2994:) 2927:) 2859:) 2811:) 2803:. 2750:a 2748:as 2692:) 2617:) 2554:) 2392:) 2328:) 2224:) 2169:) 2128:) 2049:) 1996:) 1901:) 1883:) 1825:) 1783:– 1771:– 1759:– 1747:– 1614:) 1593:) 1567:) 1559:. 1547:) 1539:. 1527:) 1519:. 1506:) 1398:) 1310:) 1256:, 1241:) 1150:) 1084:) 1072:, 1016:) 953:, 949:, 911:) 882:. 830:) 767:) 720:) 712:. 694:? 681:) 663:) 599:) 589:). 573:me 534:) 488:) 440:) 388:) 336:) 271:) 234:) 177:| 173:| 169:| 165:| 160:| 156:| 151:| 147:| 89:₯’ 43:. 3214:( 3188:( 3173:( 3148:( 3142:: 3138:@ 3127:( 3107:( 3059:( 3047:C 3045:/ 3043:T 2990:( 2923:( 2855:( 2807:( 2688:( 2613:( 2550:( 2516:? 2388:( 2324:( 2259:( 2220:( 2165:( 2124:( 2045:( 1992:( 1897:( 1879:( 1867:( 1846:· 1841:( 1820:· 1815:( 1728:: 1610:( 1604:: 1600:@ 1589:( 1563:( 1543:( 1523:( 1502:( 1415:* 1394:( 1306:( 1237:( 1171:* 1146:( 1080:( 1012:( 907:( 854:) 846:· 840:· 832:· 825:· 819:· 813:· 807:· 802:( 794:( 791:) 783:· 777:· 769:· 762:· 756:· 750:· 744:· 739:( 731:( 716:( 677:( 659:( 638:C 636:/ 634:T 619:· 614:( 595:( 584:· 579:( 566:· 561:( 530:( 513:C 511:/ 509:T 484:( 468:C 466:/ 464:T 436:( 420:C 418:/ 416:T 384:( 366:C 364:/ 362:T 332:( 314:C 312:/ 310:T 267:( 258:) 250:· 244:· 236:· 229:· 223:· 217:· 211:· 206:( 198:( 195:) 188:· 181:) 143:( 49:.

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/OpEdNews (3rd nomination) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index