862:: "OurCrowd, based in Jerusalem, has helped 100 companies raise $ 300 million since 2013. It has a network of 15,000 investors from 110 countries, about 2,000 of which are active in deals, says Jonathan Medved, the platformâs founder. Half of the siteâs investors are based in the U.S.Not only has OurCrowd helped startups raise hundreds of millions of dollars, itâs enabled many to do so quickly. For example, Medved says OurCrowd helped one fintech company raise $ 4 million in 48 hours about two years ago. While thatâs not the norm, Medved says, it isnât unusual for companies to raise large sums of money in a matter of weeks, or a few months.âWe can consistently raise millions of dollar for companies,â Medved says.Much like a venture capital firm, OurCrowd has created four investment funds that focus on sectors, regions, or the phase of a companyâs growth. When investors invest, they also do so through so-called special purpose vehicles, or SPVs. Those are limited partnerships that gather together the investors as a single entity, which solves the problem of having too many stray investors in your company.OurCrowd also rejects 98% of the companies that come to it for financing, Medved says, and its vetting process plus its investment structure has garnered the interest of VCs. Well-known venture capital funds, including US Venture Partners, Spark Capital, Menlo Ventures, and Charles River Ventures, have invested alongside OurCrowd in its platform companies.âMy biggest concern, and reason for not doing is that in its current format, it does not allow for the SPV structure,â Medved says. âWhen you can aggregate everyone and represent them, you can act like a VC investor."
979:- The Forbes is not an independent source because it's not only a mere interview where he is going to specifics, which of course includes what he wants to advertise about the company, the "journalist" is not n actual staff employee, she's a "contributor" from another place, so if she's not even an actual employee, there cannot be confidence of substance and convincing, therefore that's not a "Slam Dunk", because both people (the CEO and journalist) could be said to be a paid position to find and obtain PR, especially since she lists herself as a freelance journalist, a job that is noticeably heavy with PR. The own questions simply consist of "What's the company? How's it work? How can people invest? "What number of people can invest? What's the minimum a client can invest (of which they then list exact numbers of money (clear)), How's it work (a repeated question), etc. " This actually goes to continue for 4 pages, that shows the passion and efforts of advertising the company, therefore it's not guaranteed to be non-PR, especially considering the CEO saying everything.
530:- It's quite noticeable that the sources consist of mere republished PR, including the ones above where the company is talking about their business plans and thoughts about funding and financing, something that is clear to be PR and that alone, because no one else knows better about the company's plans....than itself. Now, as the for the comment above as "LinkedIn shows these journalists are honest and serious", thst means absolutely nothing because not only are these their own websites and job listings, a PR agent is going to be as surreptitious as they can about PR actions, in attempts to make it so obvious. It's happened here at AfD Deletions thst then closed as Delete, with that. None of the Keep votes are actually substantiating themselves by what I said aboce, including where I explicitly noted these concerns, and this shows by the fact they are simply tossing links and calling them news, yet they are as my analyses and comments had shown, they are simply
675:- There is no "truth", especially not an encyclopedia, if we accept press releases, which are essentially contents all by the company itself, simply stating there are sources, yet not specifying which ones are the ones which would be used, considering the consensus above shows and states otherwise, also "rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source" is not the case at all since republished PR is still PR, no matter where published, that's what exactly we should not be accepted, not finding excuses to actually use them. If any attention to churnalistic PR occurs, it's because it's been carriaged as PR, and that's still nothing we would actually accept. In the case of "verifiability", that is exactly why we would not accept PR because we are simply using the company's own words, not what an encyclopedia should use itself.
1441:
it's not, because it's an advertisement with advertising sources therefore there are no sensible solutions to that. Also, it is not the same thing to literally say "There are sources! That must be enough for WP:CORPDEPTH" if the specific analyses here have explicitly shown they are all still trivial and unconvincing PR. As a note, the Keep votes here themselves have either tossed in some sources but not responded to actually substantiate themselves especially after the sources were found to be trivial and unconvincing PR, the other ones that have then commented are in fact acknowledging they are still PR and "puffery". When we start making compromises and keeping blatant advertisements, we're completely damned as a serious website.
1309:- To ensure there was a consensus about all this, I will note that the source above is exactly unconvincing since it merely lists the company's own plans including how it's achieving and planning to get money, that's not news, that's an attention listing for clients and investors, and is what happens to any company, particularly the staunch ones that are avid about money. The first sentence itself goes to actually then state what the company's plans are and the second paragraph goes to a quote before taking patterns between interview and funding quotes again, that shows alone it was not genuine journalism, if the company itself is occupying the space.
205:
the company has and how it's seeking additional funding and investors-clients (there's even such blatant PR as the company then talking about its locations and offices!), and as past AfDs have shown of course, that's a classic sign of a company, not only not being actually notable, but they haven't even established themselves with financing. Once we start accepting such blatant PR and advertisement "articles", we're completely damned as an encyclopedia because of such trivial sources being passed as "news", the article itself only ever actually focuses with things the company would only say of itself, not what an actual encyclopedia publishes.
535:
links, it's clear, looking at them, there was republished PR, so then stating Keep because of sources, is not the same thing. The IP then actually states how "if they are significant news", yet this automatically means nothing if they are, again, republished PR; thisbalso shows by then stating "but someone will make excuses about these sources" is thin in itself since, again, the IP simply tossed some links but never either acknowledged and considered the concerns listed above, or, the PR concerns that laid in those listed sources. Once we start accepting PR campaign articles, we're damned as an encyclopedia.
513:
they're reliable sources. And I went and looked up every one of the authors on LinkedIn, to confirm that they were serious, experienced, professional journalists, and not "bloggers" or "contributors" or OurCrowd marketing people who weren't independent. Nevertheless, I'm sure people will be able to make up some excuse for why they don't count. Sigh.
579:. I agree completely with "Once we start accepting such blatant PR and advertisement "articles", we're completely damned as an encyclopedia because of such trivial sources being passed as "news", the article itself only ever actually focuses with things the company would only say of itself, not what an actual encyclopedia publishes." We should
601:- That's exactly the thing: accepting articles that were touched and overall contributed by the company and its PRvagents itself, is then actually hosting said advertisements, and it shows the need sources above clearly simply republished the company's own contents, therefore unacceptable. There is no compromise to accepting advertisements.
1440:
As the extensive analysis has shown here, we cannot actually improve an article whose sole intentions were advertising to begin with, claiming it can be fixed when it in fact cannot is simply making an excuse to say "well, we can see if it can be fixed" instead of actually facing the facts and seeing
369:
Sorry, I don't see it. Are most if not all of these reliable sources? Are we going to second guess every article to try to find promotion everywhere? If someone has put their name to something copied from a press release, fair enough, we can discount it, but I don't see all of these falling into that
512:
says that notable articles should have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All of these articles have OurCrowd as the primary subject of their writing, so their coverage is substantial. All of them are from large, well-known, professional media outlets, so
914:
I did not realize that, I asssumed that it was akin to being a "contributor" on a number of other reputable publications where a number of "contributors" are invited to post, but invitations to beocme a contributor only go to a limited number of recognized authorities in various fields. In this
534:
PR, certainly not PR-immune (again given the closeness of stating the company's own funding, financing and business plans). Despite that I explicitly showed where the sources are unacceptable, but then stating they are acceptable, is completely contrary. These Keep votes were so quick to list these
1654:
These are news pieces that talk about what the company aspirations are "OurCrowd Aims to Widen Pool of Angel
Investors to Main Street" and how it raised money: "OurCrowd Ltd., a website that connects investors to a pool of mostly Israeli and U.S. startups, said it raised $ 72 million to expand its
204:
are exactly finding PR itself, simply because a major news source publishes something is not actually saying the contents themselves are convincing; because in this case, not only are there actually press releases, there's then other trivial and unconvincing news such as what funding and financing
657:
Lots of sources from around the world listed here. Note that rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source. Churnalism or not, attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed. Newspaper's corporate lawyers remain just as
583:
accept such PR and advertising. But we also can't throw out any article which gets edited by a PR agent. It's a big problem because we lose a lot of notable content because on the surface the articles look like non notable cruft. What we need really is an official team supported by
Wikimedia to
1043:, "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article."
1072:
As of
November 2013, OurCrowd raised over $ 25M for its 30 portfolio companies. Contributions were raised from accredited investors in over 19 different countries. In January, 2016, OurCrowd brought together 3,000 investors and entrepreneurs for their annual summit in
1170:, and only serves to promote the company, rather than provide encyclopedic content. Sources brought to the AfD are equally unconvincing. They are only about funding, partnerships and corporate events, with no indications of why this company is significant:
726:
Yes, and one of the best policies we have is not accepting advertisements, and this is something we will always use should we continue as an encyclopedia, that's exactly why the sources above are unacceptable, because they consist of PR.
807:
to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is somehow a
857:
I hit that article by running a google news search on "Jonathan Medved" + "Our Crowd" as a way of checking whether coverage is as shallow as a user above asserts. in addition to that Forbes article you get stuff like this in
635:
to interpret our RS rules such that things that are clearly barely-processed press releases would be treated as A+ first-class carefully-verified information you can absolutely rely upon, that does not mean that doing so is a
1338:
Some editors have becomes notorious for unwillingness to reconsider their initial opinion on notability, doubling down even in the face of evidence like "OurCrowd Aims to Widen Pool of Angel
Investors to Main Street,"
753:
is a policy, but where does it say anything like what you suggest? Some specific words are "content hosted in
Knowledge (XXG) is not for:". So your claim that "notadvert" applies to sources has a direct refutation.
52:, with the caveat that serious concerns have been raised about the tone of the article. If these issues are not addressed, deletion on the grounds of its promotional nature becomes a more justifiable option.
166:
1190:"Note that rewarmed press releases are secondary coverage, carrying the reliability of the secondary source. Churnalism or not, attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed
514:
1416:-- if the article were copy edited to remove intricate detail of no interest to the general public, as well as promotional content, it would be reduced to one or two paragraphs, resulting in a
785:. Some sources provide coverage that is a bit on a routine level, but others provide more in depth information, such as overviews about the company, its history, present activity, etc.
497:
830:
119:
231:
265:
1346:
I linked to it above, but many editors only consider articles that support their own intransigent position. Here is the link again, although WAJ is password protected
518:
478:
310:
248:
1514:" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Knowledge (XXG) is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for
353:
350:
289:
201:
160:
200:
removed with an overpersonal comment yet I clearly and staunchly stated my concerns in that not only is everything listed here PR, but the searches such as
1655:
operations and invest in other businesses." This is routine coverage of venture capital deals and does not rise to the level of encyclopedia notability.
408:
1522:. Furthermore, Knowledge (XXG) authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Knowledge (XXG)'s sister project
882:
That Forbes link is not an edited RS Forbes article, it's one of their third-party blog posts. It's just a blog post, not RS coverage of any sort. See
402:
883:
1633:
458:
307:
1107:
1007:. Im honestly not impressed by this article. The language written itself does not show proper notability. It reads as if it is a new startup who
1629:
1347:
1202:
I completely disagree that "attention to the topic occurs when a rewarmed press release is printed", given that
Knowledge (XXG) has a policy on
313:
1259:
438:
298:
126:
1025:
WP:Notability is defined outside of
Knowledge (XXG). Articles don't have to show any evidence of notability for the topic to be notable.
448:
295:
324:. The prod rationale may have been a lot of things but it showed no evidence of finding easily available coverage from a Google search. --
1382:
1199:
secondary sources, not just any secondary source. When publications redress press releases, they lose their reliability on this topic.
319:
468:
301:
17:
584:
patrol the site looking for advertising or articles threatend with deletion and get them to rewrite the articles and salvage them.âŚ
915:
particular case, of source, Amy
Guttman is a highly regarded journalist, not at all akin to the individuals who post on Huntington.
658:
responsible for what gets published, churnalism or not. And
Knowledge (XXG)'s verifiability should never be confused with Truth.
866:
1206:. When companies run ads in the same publications, this would also attract "attention", but we don't base articles on ads, do we?
803:, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's
631:, I have no problem calling that "promotional" and not considering it reliable sourcing to base an encyclopedia upon. While it's
894:- however, anything on forbes.com/sites that doesn't explicitly say "Forbes staff" or "From the print edition" is just a blog -
1510:
Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb
412:
1239:
We'd literally be able to use nothing from the article as far as encyclopedic content is concerned. I thus advocate deletion.
884:
Knowledge (XXG):Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Has_anyone_written_up_something_referenceable_on_the_problem_with_Forbes_blogs.3F
1217:
article extensively quoted above is based on the interview with the founder. This is not an acceptable RS for the purpose of
1143:
488:
316:
92:
87:
1685:
304:
181:
40:
96:
394:
148:
562:
Clearly notable, but joins the big basket of "notable article invaded by advertising PR agent" type ones we have.âŚ
355:
is a reprinted press release ... are the rest actually any good? Please reread the objections in the nomination -
1546:
1030:
759:
711:
663:
79:
1108:
http://www.geektime.com/2014/04/28/ourcrowd-gets-25m-for-its-own-funding-which-it-will-pass-on-to-its-portfolio/
1454:
1322:
992:
740:
688:
614:
548:
218:
865:. This is not mere recycling of press releases. Next I searched "Jonathan Medved" in the Wall Street Journal
428:
292:
398:
1221:. Note how many quotes from the founder are there. These are all potentially unverifiable claims, such as:
899:
817:
645:
360:
142:
1417:
1373:
1011:
got funding. Regarding its sources, 2 are of its own site and 1 is in Hebrew. sigh. the others are weak.
778:
750:
1681:
1660:
1641:
1583:
1565:
1515:
1425:
1400:
1354:
1291:
1244:
1045:
951:
920:
873:
841:
787:
343:
286:
270:
253:
236:
57:
36:
1395:
419:
With Plans of
Investing $ 100M Next Year, Israelâs OurCrowd Forges Its Own Path in Equity Crowdfunding
1542:
1267:
1263:
1082:
1026:
755:
707:
659:
138:
1470:
1283:
1664:
1645:
1616:
1587:
1569:
1550:
1481:
1459:
1442:
1429:
1404:
1386:
1358:
1340:
1327:
1310:
1295:
1271:
1248:
1049:
1034:
1020:
997:
980:
955:
924:
903:
877:
845:
821:
791:
763:
745:
728:
715:
693:
676:
667:
649:
619:
602:
592:
576:
570:
553:
536:
522:
432:
379:
364:
333:
274:
257:
240:
223:
206:
174:
61:
1625:
1040:
782:
859:
442:
1203:
1062:
188:
1377:
1016:
895:
813:
641:
472:
356:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1680:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1575:
1519:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1656:
1637:
1579:
1421:
1350:
1287:
1240:
947:
916:
869:
837:
585:
563:
501:
375:
329:
53:
1167:
943:
891:
509:
1477:
1343:
article by Yulia Chernova, a journalist on tech and venture cap employed by the Journal
498:
OurCrowd has closed Australiaâs largest ever equity crowdfunding round for $ 1.5 million
1604:
1232:"OurCrowd also rejects 98% of the companies that come to it for financing, Medved says"
482:
462:
1344:
890:
is a notable expert whose opinion is relevant, then the source should be judged under
154:
942:
the other sources that I brought. I am still firmly persuaded hat this topic passes
863:
322:
83:
1376:. Any concerns with promotional tone should be fixed by editing, not deletion. ----
1012:
836:
make this Keep a slam-dunk. Notability is supported by coverage in RS. It just is.
113:
418:
371:
325:
1226:"Medved says OurCrowd helped one fintech company raise $ 4 million in 48 hours"
1178:
OurCrowd draws 3,000 to Jerusalem Global Investor Summit in The Jerusalem Post.
1473:
800:
628:
531:
422:
1394:â I agree with the above notion about tone, which can often be corrected by
1078:
1074:
492:
1229:"âWe can consistently raise millions of dollar for companies,â Medved says"
702:
Our policies and guidelines are not "excuses", they are the rules by which
489:
Forget Brexit, this startup is eyeing "Brentry" with London expansion plans
75:
67:
1511:
1175:
OurCrowd, Bayer set up $ 15 million agtech fund in The Times of Israel.
1065:
and no indications of notability or significance. With content such as:
1181:
Singapore's UOB and Israeli crowdfunding company team up in CNBC. Etc
833:
342:
good, and are precisely the sort of thing the nom is talking about.
409:
Israeli equity crowdfunding platform OurCrowd launches in Australia
1603:- I'd closed as Keep however the nom disagreed so am reopening. â
459:
Israelâs OurCrowd Raises $ 72 Million to Boost Crowdfunding Deals
1674:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1086:
452:
1119:
1563:
The article does not read as an opinion piece, in my opinion.
1144:"Via Singapore, OurCrowd brings crowdfunding platform to Asia"
469:
UOB partners Israeli startup OurCrowd for equity crowdfunding
352:
is a Forbes Blogs piece by a random blogger and not an RS,
1490:
Here is the only place in WP:NOT that discusses "soapbox":
345:
is a promo piece for the Wired Money conference (and just
285:. It's notable. The coverage I found shows it's notable:
449:
Singapore's UOB and Israeli crowdfunding company team up
439:
OurCrowd draws 3,000 to Jerusalem Global Investor Summit
1523:
812:, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so -
640:, and I really don't see that we're obliged to do so -
197:
109:
105:
101:
1286:
to be basing its article on uncritical news coverage.
173:
1077:. In March, 2016, OurCrowd raised $ 10 million from
886:
for a discussion of the Forbes blog problem. If the
401:. It's behind a paywall, but there's a copy online
187:
1372:. Sources provided in this AfD show that it meets
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1688:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1518:, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a
429:OurCrowd, Bayer set up $ 15 million agtech fund
1578:for the company. Hence, I advocated deletion.
232:list of Companies-related deletion discussions
395:OurCrowd Raises $ 72M for Crowdfunding Gambit
266:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
1574:The article indeed reads like a promotional
264:Note: This debate has been included in the
247:Note: This debate has been included in the
230:Note: This debate has been included in the
249:list of Israel-related deletion discussions
263:
246:
229:
1636:, as well as other sources listed above.
1085:, with the stated goal of expanding into
1420:listing, which Knowledge (XXG) is not.
1166:this article is not in compliance with
1100:
1189:
1120:"OurCrowd Global Investor Summit 2016"
868:. Just keep and tag for improvement.
515:2602:306:3A29:9B90:218F:3CEA:6D46:D5E9
1526:allows commentaries on its articles.
479:OurCrowd: Crowded house on investment
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
799:When the RSes are clearly running
627:When the RSes are clearly running
24:
1258:as per numerous sources such as
1262:and per Michig and EMGregory.--
413:The Australian Financial Review
1192:is very odd, for two reasons:
1:
62:07:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
1665:05:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1646:05:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1617:04:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1588:05:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1570:05:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1551:04:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1482:02:33, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1460:02:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1430:02:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1405:02:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1387:01:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
1359:15:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
1328:01:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
1296:22:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
1272:22:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
1249:22:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
1050:23:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
1035:21:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
1021:20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
998:19:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
956:19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
925:19:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
904:19:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
878:18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
846:18:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
822:09:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
792:05:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
764:13:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
746:05:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
716:05:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
694:03:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
668:03:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
650:00:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
620:17:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
593:17:51, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
571:17:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
554:16:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
523:10:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
405:if anyone wants to read it.
380:10:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
365:10:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
334:08:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
275:08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
258:08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
241:08:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
224:07:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
1705:
1039:For more information, see
1282:Note: Knowledge (XXG) is
1195:Knowledge (XXG) requires
706:operate as a community.
198:Extensively informed PROD
1677:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1219:establishing notability
399:The Wall Street Journal
391:Some relevant sources:
832:profile/interview in
338:uh, those sources are
1520:neutral point of view
1307:Comment and analysis
1083:United Overseas Bank
977:Comment and analysis
1630:Wall Street Journal
1341:Wall Street Journal
1148:The Times of Israel
1124:summit.ourcrowd.com
829:Coverage like this
433:The Times of Israel
860:Fortune (magazine)
443:The Jerusalem Post
1531:
1530:
783:available sources
473:The Straits Times
277:
260:
243:
1696:
1679:
1614:
1609:
1568:
1502:
1501:
1457:
1452:
1403:
1325:
1320:
1158:
1157:
1155:
1154:
1140:
1134:
1133:
1131:
1130:
1116:
1110:
1105:
1048:
995:
990:
790:
781:per a review of
743:
738:
691:
686:
617:
612:
590:
568:
551:
546:
502:Business Insider
273:
256:
239:
221:
216:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1704:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1695:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1686:deletion review
1675:
1610:
1605:
1601:Closure comment
1564:
1543:Unscintillating
1508:Opinion pieces.
1455:
1443:
1399:
1385:
1323:
1311:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1152:
1150:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1128:
1126:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1106:
1102:
1044:
1027:Unscintillating
993:
981:
786:
756:Unscintillating
741:
729:
708:Unscintillating
689:
677:
660:Unscintillating
615:
603:
586:
564:
549:
537:
269:
252:
235:
219:
207:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1702:
1700:
1691:
1690:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1649:
1648:
1619:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1516:current events
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1485:
1484:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1408:
1407:
1389:
1381:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1331:
1330:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1275:
1274:
1252:
1251:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1213:Likewise, the
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1200:
1188:The statement
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1160:
1159:
1135:
1111:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1067:
1066:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1037:
1001:
1000:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
928:
927:
907:
906:
880:
849:
848:
824:
794:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
721:
720:
719:
718:
697:
696:
670:
652:
622:
577:SwisterTwister
557:
556:
525:
507:
506:
505:
495:
486:
483:The Australian
476:
466:
463:Bloomberg News
456:
446:
436:
426:
416:
406:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
279:
278:
261:
244:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1701:
1689:
1687:
1683:
1678:
1672:
1671:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1618:
1615:
1613:
1608:
1602:
1599:
1598:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1566:North America
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1527:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1503:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1461:
1458:
1453:
1450:
1446:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1401:North America
1397:
1393:
1390:
1388:
1384:
1383:contributions
1379:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1367:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1345:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1308:
1305:
1304:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1149:
1145:
1139:
1136:
1125:
1121:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1046:North America
1042:
1038:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1002:
999:
996:
991:
988:
984:
978:
975:
974:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
926:
922:
918:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
879:
875:
871:
867:
864:
861:
856:
853:
852:
851:
850:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
828:
825:
823:
819:
815:
811:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
789:
788:North America
784:
780:
776:
773:
772:
765:
761:
757:
752:
749:
748:
747:
744:
739:
736:
732:
725:
724:
723:
722:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
692:
687:
684:
680:
674:
671:
669:
665:
661:
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
634:
630:
626:
623:
621:
618:
613:
610:
606:
600:
597:
596:
595:
594:
591:
589:
582:
578:
573:
572:
569:
567:
561:
555:
552:
547:
544:
540:
533:
529:
526:
524:
520:
516:
511:
508:
503:
499:
496:
494:
490:
487:
484:
480:
477:
474:
470:
467:
464:
460:
457:
454:
450:
447:
444:
440:
437:
434:
430:
427:
424:
420:
417:
414:
410:
407:
404:
400:
396:
393:
392:
390:
387:
381:
377:
373:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
354:
351:
348:
347:read the text
344:
341:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
320:
317:
314:
311:
308:
305:
302:
299:
296:
293:
290:
287:
284:
281:
280:
276:
272:
271:North America
267:
262:
259:
255:
254:North America
250:
245:
242:
238:
237:North America
233:
228:
227:
226:
225:
222:
217:
214:
210:
203:
199:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1676:
1673:
1621:
1611:
1606:
1600:
1507:
1505:
1466:
1448:
1444:
1418:WP:DIRECTORY
1413:
1396:copy editing
1391:
1378:Patar knight
1374:WP:CORPDEPTH
1369:
1316:
1312:
1306:
1255:
1218:
1214:
1196:
1151:. Retrieved
1147:
1138:
1127:. Retrieved
1123:
1114:
1103:
1095:
1058:
1008:
1004:
986:
982:
976:
939:
896:David Gerard
887:
854:
826:
814:David Gerard
809:
804:
796:
779:WP:CORPDEPTH
774:
751:WP:NOTADVERT
734:
730:
703:
682:
678:
672:
654:
642:David Gerard
637:
632:
624:
608:
604:
598:
587:
580:
574:
565:
559:
558:
542:
538:
527:
388:
370:category. --
357:David Gerard
346:
339:
282:
212:
208:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1657:K.e.coffman
1638:Safehaven86
1580:K.e.coffman
1422:K.e.coffman
1351:E.M.Gregory
1288:K.e.coffman
1241:K.e.coffman
948:E.M.Gregory
917:E.M.Gregory
870:E.M.Gregory
838:E.M.Gregory
588:Dr. Blofeld
566:Dr. Blofeld
161:free images
1471:WP:SOAPBOX
1398:articles.
1284:WP:NOTNEWS
1264:Tomwsulcer
1153:2016-04-05
1129:2016-01-24
1096:References
801:churnalism
629:churnalism
532:churnalism
423:TechCrunch
1682:talk page
1634:Bloomberg
1626:WP:SIGCOV
1512:soapboxes
1079:Singapore
1075:Jerusalem
1041:WP:NEXIST
810:good idea
638:good idea
493:City A.M.
54:Vanamonde
37:talk page
1684:or in a
1524:Wikinews
1260:this one
1204:WP:PROMO
1197:reliable
1089:markets.
1063:WP:PROMO
855:Addendum
805:possible
777:â Meets
633:possible
202:this one
120:View log
76:OurCrowd
68:OurCrowd
39:or in a
1576:WP:SOAP
1414:Comment
1392:Comment
1215:Fortune
1061:-- per
1013:Pyrusca
797:Comment
673:Comment
625:Comment
599:Comment
528:Comment
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1467:Delete
1451:wister
1447:wister
1319:wister
1315:wister
1168:WP:NOT
1059:Delete
1005:Delete
989:wister
985:wister
944:WP:GNG
892:WP:SPS
888:writer
834:Forbes
737:wister
733:wister
685:wister
681:wister
611:wister
607:wister
545:wister
541:wister
510:WP:GNG
372:Michig
326:Michig
215:wister
211:wister
139:Google
97:delete
1622:Keep:
1607:Davey
1474:âââââ§
1087:Asian
500:, in
491:, in
481:, in
471:, in
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1661:talk
1642:talk
1632:and
1624:per
1612:2010
1584:talk
1547:talk
1478:talk
1469:per
1456:talk
1426:talk
1370:Keep
1355:talk
1324:talk
1292:talk
1268:talk
1256:Keep
1245:talk
1031:talk
1017:talk
1009:just
994:talk
952:talk
940:Note
921:talk
900:talk
874:talk
842:talk
827:Keep
818:talk
775:Keep
760:talk
742:talk
712:talk
690:talk
664:talk
655:Keep
646:talk
616:talk
560:Keep
550:talk
519:talk
453:CNBC
403:here
389:Keep
376:talk
361:talk
330:talk
283:Keep
220:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:Keep
1628:in
1506:3.
1380:- /
1081:'s
581:not
461:in
451:in
441:in
431:in
421:in
411:in
397:in
349:),
340:not
189:TWL
118:â (
1663:)
1644:)
1586:)
1549:)
1480:)
1428:)
1357:)
1294:)
1270:)
1247:)
1146:.
1122:.
1033:)
1019:)
954:)
923:)
902:)
876:)
844:)
820:)
762:)
714:)
704:we
666:)
648:)
575:@
521:)
378:)
363:)
332:)
321:,
318:,
315:,
312:,
309:,
306:,
303:,
300:,
297:,
294:,
291:,
288:,
268:.
251:.
234:.
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1659:(
1640:(
1582:(
1545:(
1476:(
1449:T
1445:S
1424:(
1353:(
1349:.
1317:T
1313:S
1290:(
1266:(
1243:(
1156:.
1132:.
1029:(
1015:(
987:T
983:S
950:(
946:.
919:(
898:(
872:(
840:(
816:(
758:(
735:T
731:S
710:(
683:T
679:S
662:(
644:(
609:T
605:S
543:T
539:S
517:(
504:.
485:.
475:.
465:.
455:.
445:.
435:.
425:.
415:.
374:(
359:(
328:(
213:T
209:S
193:)
185:¡
179:¡
171:¡
164:¡
158:¡
152:¡
146:¡
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:¡
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.