Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lewinsky (neologism)

2304:

words that have entered our language. At best we can describe usages of surnames as references to particular inflection points that are confined considerably to historical points in time. My prediction is that the point will come, in the not too distant future, when these two references will be dated and will adversely reflect upon any user, and any further use will mark one as from a previous era. At that point the only possible use will be the recreation of historical settings as in writing and filmography. The briefest of mentions of both of these terms should be confined to articles on wider topics, as these terms definitely have not entered our language, but merely are references.

394:. Well this is off to a terrible start! The original nomination was not completed and did not include a real rationale. I had no interest in making this nomination myself but I did complete the process so it would be listed properly. Off2riorob repeatedly blanked the content, claiming this was a bad-faith nom from someone who does not actually want the article deleted. Whether or not that is true, blanking this page (and edit warring over it) was inappropriate but apparently will stop now. The nominator does need to include a rationale, and if they don't actually want this deleted then this never should have been nominated in the first place. That said, given the discussion at the 1444:. Assuming that's how and why the article was created we shouldn't reward a disruptive editor who happens to have found a viable policy argument the fruits of their mischief. Further, stepping way back from all of this, as an encyclopedia I think we should mention this pop culture phenomenon -- the English language and its evolution being an important topic well worth covering in the encyclopedia -- briefly as a side issue to the scandal article, not as a stand-alone article. That's what's best to inform the reader, our primary mission here. - 1296:- I am the creator of this article. The word "lewinsky" as a slang term or euphemism for oral sex continues to be widely used as I have tried to show by my selection of sources. Many of the sources not only use the word but also mention that it has become part of the lexicon. It has been included in multiple slang dictionaries. I believe that its popularity derives from the fact that it is seen as an acceptable euphemism for a subject that would not otherwise be mentioned. The 846:: Monica Lewinsky is only notable for a single reason, the scandal surrounding her affair with Bill Clinton. This would be a third article dealing with her and the aspects of that scandal. Its a BLP violation to have Monica Lewinsky only notable for this sex scandal to be featured in three stand alone articles. If this neologism, is deemed either appropriate or significant enough to be noted in Knowledge (XXG), a line in one of the other two articles is enough.( 1952:, which are then mentioned in the article (in some detail, I add). That basically amounts to an "in popular culture" section. All this content should be removed till secondary sources can be found to support it. The remaining sources do, yes, raise this as content we should be adding - but not to the level of a standalone article. The neologism was relatively short lived and relates to the wider story of the scandal more than anything else. -- 48:. There is overwhealming consensus that this does not justify a standalone article and while I considered exercising discretion for a merge over a deletion to try and take the keep arguments into account the bald fact is that the delete side has such a strong showing that it would be an abuse of discretion not to simply go with the numbers. So many people have not been swayed by the keep votes that the outcome is very clear 2452:{{cite web|last=Boone|first=Matt|title=Jim Ross On WWE/Denver Incident, RAW Announcing, Tag-Teams|url=http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/jim-ross-on-wwedenver-incident-raw-announcing-tag-teams-77475|publisher=]|accessdate=2 July 2011|date=22 May 2009|quote=Most know what a "Lewinsky" refers to so I wonder if arena scheduling issues might be referred to as "Kroenke's" in the future?}}</ref: --> 2281:. Easy to populate such a list. Should have been done with whatever we're calling "santorum" now. Merge other sexual neologisms into the list as they come to meet the tests of notability and verification. Create redirects from all such into the new parent. This should provide reasonable coverage without offering undue promotion to one single neologism. 2173:. A handful of allusive references do not a neologism make. Sources that characterize a joke among college kids and attention seekers as a neologism, rather than a protologism at most, are expressing a fringe view. Even as a protologism, there is nothing encyclopedic to say about it, just an etymology and some use cases, titillating though they be. ~ 490:) which I thought had some remote potential to become an encyclopedia article as well; this seems just a little less than that one, basically a list of attestations. Wiktionary currently lacks an entry at all, which should be modified. From the deletion review it sounds like the sources need double checking to sort over some details. However, I do 2454:-- there's nothing there, or in the source, to say that "Lewinsky" means blowjob as opposed to intern of the preferred sex, intern selected for looks, sexually available intern, curvacious person, person who's the butt of jokes, person whose "15 minutes" elapsed some time ago, etc etc. ¶ There is little parallel with the neologism 2477:- At best, a non-notable neologism. At least as likely: a POINTY retort to the Campaign for Santorum Neologism piece. Stacking three footnotes on the first line in the lead to "support" a highly arguable subjective statement is the tell-tale red flag for me. Footnote stacking is often a sign of tendentious editing... 1906:, upon a second review I still don't think this is a malicious BLP violation. With that said, I think there is undue weight given to the neologism given the sources available, so I think a merge to the scandal article to cover the coining of the word (thouroughly referenced, of course) is the best way to go here. 1580:, even though I appreciate Wikiedomen's argument. This does not rise to the level of notability required for something relatively extraordinary, and the lack of proper sourcing is indicative. That a Wrestlezone commentator needs to be cited suggests this lack of notability, as does the plethora of primary sources. 1990:. Simply put: This is not what an encyclopedia, regardless of how extensive, should be documenting in all juicy lurid details. The funny thing is, I won't be surprised a bit if this gets deleted, and the santorum one gets kept. But I'm starting to get used to the complete lack of consistency in this project. — 246:"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." 2303:

and then one can conjure up the image intended by the speaker's linking to that particular historical incident. So, no, there is no topic for an article here. In fact there should not be a dictionary definition for the terms lewinsky or santorum. There is no way that anyone could argue that these are

1712:

A flash in the pan. The only current sources using the term are political commentators who live to beat dead horses. The rest are painfully dated. At most this deserves a sentence or two in the scandal and biography articles about a short-lived eponymous piece of slang, that has not been picked up

570:

There may be nothing more here than a DICDEF so we should consider that as a strong reason for deletion. However I strongly contest the unsupported allegations that the article itself is an attack page of that the mere mention of "Lewinsky" is some BLP violation so gross that the editor creating the

1545:

to scandal article, after condensing substantially. The cited material doesn't show enduring use of this neologism, just a burst of use in the immediate wake of the events. Most of the cited later uses are from partisan sources and targeting commentary, no more than ordinary political invective that

1388:

I don't understand what you mean—the revulsion is at allowing this page to exist, not the action of oral sex. BLP is about protecting people, not further associating them with something undesirable. Now, this doesn't mean all negative content should be removed, of course, but we shouldn't be hosting

1675:

because there's no campaign here, and no sources indicating any political impact. The purported notability is simply indication that the word is being used, which is enough for a dictionary but not for an encyclopedia. Although I disagree with KayBee's "keep" rationale, I see no blockable offense

2298:

wouldn't be a bad option. The problem is these are minority uses of the word, which of course is not actually a word, but a surname. Even when used as this article purports it is used, there is not actually word usage there (this applies to "santorum" as well) but rather invocation of an idea that

916:

Updated, S Marshall's arguments that other than the definition there really isn't anything to do here that isn't on the scandal page. Rather than redoing that on this page, a merge makes a lot more sense (yes, I know he got delete out of that, but A) I don't see a BLP violation here as it's all

494:

support deleting the article in the event transwiki is chosen, because it is better to keep the original contribution history and discussion - a soft redirect is good enough, no need to erase the history. But above all what we need to do is recognize, whether it was a good article or one better

292:

Please remain calm. It accomplishes nothing to repeatedly blank this AFD, as you have done, and to now rail against it. The consensus at the deletion review was to overturn the speedy and relist. I read nothing there that would support your claim that "there is clear support for this content."

1096:

The difference between the Lewinsky (neologism) and Santorum (neologism) is that in the Lewinsky case, the word itself hasn't attracted controversy or coverage. There wasn't a campaign to elevate "Lewinsky" to a word, and there was no controversy about that word. This is why it's entirely

988:

Interestingly enough, you have exposed the principal problem with broad enforcement of BLP. Where we are normally supposed to be supremely agnostic about the subject of the article, a liberal interpretation of BLP would force us to distinguish between those two cases. We should be just as

1081:. As JN466 says " secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources" (apart from 3 sexual slang books), so it could merged to the scandal article Most of the article is original research on how the primary sources use the term, and it could be trimmed during the merge. -- 238:

I make no recommendation as to deletion, merge & redirect, keeping, or moving this article to a new name. I am simply here summarizing the base concern expressed there. It basically boils down to those who wanted it to stay deleted feel like it's a pretty blatant violation of

608:

A list of sources that start with a quote from an announcer for professional wrestling is not a good sign. Oral sex had been around for a great many years before Lewinsky became infamous; it doesn't seem quite fair to tag the young woman with a label a few clowns have tossed

989:

suspicious about unsourced allegations in both articles. Note I did not say (nor did Wiwaxia) that sourced allegations be scrubbed from both articles. You would also be hard pressed to find literal policy which would force us to do the scrubbing. And yet here we are.

546:

think it can be transwikied, but I don't want that to be taken as meaning Kiwi Bomb should be blocked - the article is near the boundary between encyclopedia and dictionary definition, and new (or old) editors should not be penalized for sticking it in the wrong spot.

346:

Dreadstar's decision since the community didn't believe it was speedily deleted properly. It doesn't present a consensus to keep. I !voted to overturn Dreadstar's decision in order to have a proper AfD. The article shouldn't have been deleted without discussion.

1882:

in a section of another, the very size and scope of the standalone article makes it a BLP violation. At the very least redirect it, but I don't think there are sufficient sources for a standalone article or even a redirect of this purported neologism.

654:

Disgusting and distasteful article topics are not problematic. There are clearly enough reliable sources about the word itself that we can reasonably have an article here. Since source discuss the history and use of the word, transwikying is suboptimal.

953:

As the policy says, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced" must be removed. The BLP zealot would take this to apply to all contentious material, no matter how well sourced. He would remove a statement like

1506:

No problem, please vent. However, that and either articles are about grammar and logic and such articles are appropriate. I'll grant it can be hard to know where to draw the line. Some feel there should be no articles about words period.

868:

issues. There's simply no reason to have an article that identifies a person's name with a sexual act. Even the similar "santorum" article (which presents much different concerns) did not survive as "Santorum (neologism)" but was renamed.

1099:

Now that we know we're not being inconsistent, it remains to consider the Lewinsky case in detail. There are two things the article might discuss: the word itself (as a dictionary definition) and the way the word arose (for which see

1325:

Disgusting, Knowledge (XXG) has become a place where everyone can read about the sexual slang byproducts of someone's mistakes. I wonder how Jimbo would like it if I used the terms "pulling a Jimbo" to refer to chatting about sex?

1658:

article. I reject the reasoning stated in the nomination; there is no BLP violation here. The reason to delete is that there's nothing here beyond the dictionary entry. New words enter the language all the time. It's not like

2222:

NBC said Lewinsky was used "many times on TV". Dick Wolf refused to apologize for using it. So there's some legitimate notability to the word as a neologism, and some content that doesn't really fit into a dictionary article.

1848:

Perhaps I worded my objection incorrectly. I was merely saying it is time this discussion is put to bed. There are myriad reasons for deleting this article, many of them detailed here. I pretty much agree with all of them.

2528:

as a neologism that hasn't been itself the subject of signficant coverage. The article justs lists everytime the phrase has been used in the media, without giving any sources which discuss the broad reception of the term.

152: 2190:. Judging from the age of the references, it looks like it was briefly used as a word but didn't take. A couple of contemporary jokes don't add up to current usage. Nor is this an odd linguistic phenomenon like 2448:

this article on a humdrum synonym for blowjob. True, it's impressively tricked out, but it's merely a longwinded dictionary entry. And examination reveals that it's less impressive than it first seems. Example:

1636:

per S Marshall, without prejudice to merging anything relevant. Yes this is a delete-and-merge recommendation. The redirect is useless. We can preserve attribution through edit summaries or talk page notes.

1069:. Unfortunately, it appears in concise Partridge (Datzell's edition, 2008). And it seems to have entered the English language. Also, unfortunately, it has enough material to prevent a move to wiktionary via 1222:- Somewhat similar to the "santorum" retardation, this is not a real word; it has been utilized...sparingly...as a crude joke, that is all. Reliable sources that make mention of this could be used in the 1461:

Not a dictionary and especially not a dictionary of obscure slang. I'm now of the opinion there should be no neologism articles. Any new words should be a section of the event that created the word.

1175: 1948:; article is really straining to get this to a standalone topic, and the content fits a lot better as a paragraph in the Lewinsky Scandal. There are a lot of sources in this article 713:

policy. Most of the sources are primary sources, i.e. sources using the term, rather than secondary sources discussing the use of the term in primary sources. Also BLP concerns. --

1667:

or the like because those articles are primarily about the thing itself, with a mention of how the thing came to be described with this word. We should and do have an article on

146: 1794:

elete, we are not UrbanDictionary. Add the bare bones (i.e. that the word "Lewinsky" was briefly regarded as a synonym for fellatio) to the main article on the Lewinsky scandal.

274:- please do not comment here - this AFD is valueless and should be closed. There is clear support for this content, the AFD has been opened to strengthen it not to delete it. 1424:(carefully and judiciously). A number of policies and issues intersect here, and (pending a more complete review of the sources) the case could be made that this satisfies 2111:

was bad enough (an article which inexplicably still exists), now people want to create more like that? No, let's stop this silliness here. In this case, a brief mention in

689:

as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. A few joking uses of the word do not constitute "significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources."

339:"I would like to remind everyone that this is a discussion concerning whether Dreadstar's speedy deletion was carried out properly; it isn't a substitute AfD discussion." 113: 199:), in spite of having a lot of big name mentions, it doesn't seem to have more than passing discussion. There is already an article where this information belongs, 2019:

one should be deleted. However, I'd be a bit surprised if he was the only "keep santorum" and "delete Lewinsky" editor here. The funny part is ... I've actually

1830:

What part of WP:NOT or any core policy is "the poor lady has had enough"? That's the thing here, there are *NO* policy-based reasons for deletion. BLP covers

1201:. We don't need an article on every neologism in the English language. This one is old, trivial, and barely worth a mention. I might weakly support a merge of 187:, and per consensus on that page that the article should undergo a full AfD. To summarize: The article was created, most probably, by a badhat sock to make a 2217: 1301: 322:

I amn not suggesting "unified consensus" - however there clearly is no consensus to delete. Without a deletion rationale any comment keep or delete is void.

1226:

article to note how some have mocked her last name. But it is not an actual word, just as a certain NFL player's name that was used amusingly for a time at

395: 208: 184: 86: 81: 2416: 2153: 1967: 1672: 192: 2337:, where a one-sentence mention of this phenomenon may be appropriate. There's really no need to repeat all instances where a word has been used. — 519:

AFD discussions are not unblock discussions - if you want a statement/declaration of that you should go to WP:ANI - this is not the place at all.

90: 766:

You are right, Will, thank you. I thought someone said it was covered in these article, and upon checking I find it isn't. Adding a paragraph in

1814:

Poor lady has had enough without it becoming a wikipedia page. Drop it. BTW, Santorum is a deliberate public figure. So the analogy is bad.

973:

Are you really comparing a 22-year-old intern, who was seduced by the president to Polanski, who was charged with molesting a 13 year old girl?

308:

I agree. We shouldn't say "no" to having a discussion, and the DRV discussion clearly shows heated contention rather than unified consensus. --

73: 398:

I would imagine someone would have nominated this eventually. This note marks the end of my involvement here because, well, it just does. --

633:

I was on the fence for a while but after reviewing the sources in the un-deleted article I now think that it meets the relevant guideline (

1546:

lacks independent notability. Perhaps a better case could be made for more general usage, but without one the article can't stand alone.

2541: 2118:

be appropriate, but I cannot agree that this is such an important word that it needs an article notwithstanding the obvious BLP issues.

614:

Agreed that this page is a horrible mess, but I don't think anyone has done anything worth blockage. Loud chiding might be in order.

167: 408: 134: 17: 1160: 443:

Thanks for helping, I had to leave the computer at an inopportune time, and couldn't finish things (and not used to the process).

2260:, has been attested for a longer time. If this one were deleted, I would not be unhappy, but agree that we should be consistent. 947:

material about a living person. This article is impeccably sourced. Summoning a BLP violation here is best described at our essay

2433: 2015:

on a side note: I am somewhat puzzled by the nom's desire to keep and work on the santorum article, and yet feel so adamant that

1684: 1403: 1340: 1129: 980: 876: 300: 258: 1612:. KayBee Good point to mention it and bringing it to Knowledge (XXG), but best destination is there. Standalone article? Why? 1551: 1934: 902:. That is I don't see a point to delete and merge (in addition to the attribution problems, there just isn't a point here). 782: 725: 538:

When I say "unblock Kiwi Bomb" I'm using a shorthand - what I mean is that the discussion should make clear that the article

128: 2451:

In 2009 on popular wrestling site ], announcer Jim Ross opined that "most know what a 'Lewinsky' refers to".<ref: -->

2577: 36: 2348: 1723:(result #3 on Google as of 11:09 EDT 2011-Jul-5). And the other one will, I think, last much longer than this one did. 2156:. Or keep them both, as long as we're consistent. They are of equal notability/importance to share the same fate. 1716: 124: 1300:

gave rise to public discussion of topics that would previously not have been addressed by the mainstream media. See

890:

I think this meets WP:NEO and WP:N quite nicely. However, from an organizational viewpoint I think a merger to the

2562: 2547: 2520: 2503: 2486: 2467: 2440: 2407: 2390: 2373: 2352: 2325: 2313: 2290: 2269: 2232: 2205: 2182: 2165: 2144: 2127: 2089: 2039: 2006: 1958: 1940: 1910: 1898: 1858: 1843: 1823: 1804: 1786: 1768: 1745: 1702: 1688: 1646: 1628: 1589: 1572: 1555: 1547: 1537: 1516: 1512: 1499: 1470: 1466: 1453: 1410: 1383: 1365: 1347: 1317: 1282: 1264: 1243: 1214: 1190: 1164: 1133: 1090: 1056: 1039: 1022: 998: 983: 968: 926: 911: 879: 855: 828: 810: 788: 761: 731: 698: 681: 664: 646: 623: 598: 584: 556: 514: 460: 430: 412: 381: 356: 331: 317: 303: 286: 261: 227: 52: 2078: 1839: 1734: 1052: 851: 542:

is not improper; and the article is all he had a chance to do. This is very important to me because I actually

174: 2576:

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

2278: 1884: 1854: 1819: 352: 313: 77: 35:

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

2536: 2194:

worth documenting. Perhaps a paragraph in her article or in whatever appropriate Clinton scandal article.

1781: 1361: 1148: 948: 1698: 1533: 404: 377: 251:

Hopefully this can serve as the basis for a discussion regarding the ultimate fate of this article. Best,

69: 61: 1227: 1070: 2403: 1508: 1462: 1156: 1086: 822: 755: 677: 1983: 1152: 140: 2427: 2386: 2248:. It was once notable, and used for about ten years, then a new generation used "brain" instead. I 2108: 2070: 2032: 1999: 1835: 1726: 1681: 1398: 1335: 1125: 1048: 977: 873: 847: 806: 524: 456: 426: 327: 297: 282: 255: 223: 2178: 2140: 1892: 1850: 1815: 1449: 1313: 1144:

Used once or twice, over a decade ago. Not remotely encyclopedic. Not a definition, not anything.

1034: 1020: 348: 309: 160: 2249: 1971: 2615: 2531: 2499: 2309: 2200: 2123: 1922: 1799: 1357: 1305: 777: 720: 619: 2610: 1761: 1754: 1441: 188: 2321:. A "handful of allusive references" (Ningauble's excellent term) does not warrant an article. 2482: 2369: 2286: 2265: 1694: 1529: 1379: 1186: 994: 964: 660: 642: 594: 580: 399: 373: 243:. Particularly, Dreadstar (the inital deleting admin) pointed to this quote from that policy: 29:

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

2245: 1979: 1437: 1433: 1231: 2559: 2516: 2399: 2334: 2300: 2218:"The Nation: The New Scandalisms; It Depends on What Your Definition of Linguistic Trend Is" 2112: 1777: 1720: 1655: 1625: 1609: 1585: 1568: 1297: 1223: 1105: 1101: 1082: 1066: 1011: 891: 817: 767: 750: 741: 694: 673: 385: 200: 1987: 1975: 1600: 1482:. Don't get me started on the fiction that Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. See, e.g., 1429: 1425: 1113: 1047:

Appearing on Law and Order and in the New York Times is good enough for notability for me.

936: 865: 710: 634: 240: 2463: 2422: 2382: 2344: 2322: 2161: 2027: 1994: 1677: 1495: 1393: 1330: 1302:

The Nation: The New Scandalisms; It Depends on What Your Definition of Linguistic Trend Is

1260: 1210: 1117: 974: 922: 907: 870: 745: 520: 422: 323: 294: 278: 252: 204: 2361: 2253: 2593: 2174: 2136: 1907: 1888: 1660: 1642: 1445: 1309: 1278: 1239: 1078: 1074: 1031: 1015: 955: 917:

quite well sourced and B) I think a merge addresses the problem better than deletion.)

2495: 2458:, which by contrast was created and has been popularized for a political purpose. -- 2305: 2228: 2195: 2119: 2103:, now please. This article is almost a violation of BLP by its very existence. We do 2060:

campaign folds or people stop talking about it the way they've stopped talking about

1929: 1795: 772: 715: 615: 552: 510: 571:

article be blocked without discussion and the article speedily deleted. We need to

482:. The article is essentially a dictionary article. I've recently transwikied one ( 196: 2478: 2365: 2282: 2261: 1954: 1834:

material, not things sourced to the New York Times, BLP:1E doesn't apply to words.

1375: 1182: 990: 960: 656: 638: 590: 576: 49: 1356:

Or renaming a decade as a "full Jimbo" as in the length of time between divorces.

1273:

I will comment on blocks where and when I choose. Kindly mind your own business.

487: 107: 1255:. If you want to request a block of the user, please do so in the proper forum.-- 862:

Delete, and merge any useful content into a short paragraph into a parent article

505:

for creating. I want us to come out of this AfD with a clear statement of that.

2556: 2512: 1614: 1581: 1564: 1428:

and as a well-sourced article about an (unwitting) public figure is thus out of

958:

was charged with having unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl" under this policy.

740:

Where else on Knowledge (XXG) is it covered? I don't see it mentioned in either

690: 589:

I also have no real problem with merging this to an appropriate parent article.

2459: 2339: 2157: 1765: 1719:

except that Rush doesn't have an SEO-savvy following of word-users outside of

1491: 1256: 1206: 918: 903: 276:

Speedy close as outside process, no deletion rationale confirmation nomination

1638: 1274: 1235: 483: 1030:

per Edison. Petty name calling without any impact on the English language.

372:

It's a definition and an etymology. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. --

2597: 2224: 2191: 2048:

There's really no inconsistency. One article describes a current ongoing

1668: 1230:

isn't one, either. Also ,please re-indef block the article creator, the

575:

and have a calm discussion of the merits of the subject and the article.

548: 506: 1104:.) After you subtract (a) the dicdef and (b) the things that belong in 1664: 1097:

self-consistent to argue "keep" for Santorum but "delete" for Lewinsky.

770:

will be the best solution, rather than having a standalone article. --

1487: 864:, per concerns raised both here and at the deletion review regarding 234:

Deletion rationale from the deletion review, per nominator's request:

2360:: the neologism is documented in dictionaries and a number of other 894:

page with a short paragraph of coverage there would be workable and

2419:

both are attacks on living people and should be deleted promptly.

1753:; not even counting that this article is a textbook example of why 2570:

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

1483: 2023:

people use the later term. Dial Ripley's Believe it or not. —

421:

I am surprised but hey, I am surprised here every day, thanks.

270:- there is no rationale for this AFD - it has been opened as 2364:

that discuss the term rather than just using it in passing.

2299:

requires thinking about—first one has to think about the

1176:

list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions

417:

Ah thanks bigtimepeace, I have learnt something from you

1010:

the stand alone article and merge summary of content to

709:

not sufficient notability for a stand-alone article per

793:

Agree, there's reason for a paragraph, not an article.

337: 103: 99: 95: 499:

article - it is not something that a newbie should be

159: 1921:

Merge - non-notable neologism bordering on BLP vio. (

1389:

pages purely about someone's name equaling oral sex.

2611:"In Polanski Case, ’70s Culture Collides With Today" 1112:

this negative information about a living person per

1432:territory. However, I am also a firm proponent of 183:Nominating for deletion, for all reasons discussed 173: 2056:that is not currently in notable use. If/when the 419:"The nominator does need to include a rationale, " 2107:need to treat living people like this. I thought 1950:but many of them are simply uses of the neologism 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2580:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2511:as others have said as a non-notable neologism. 209:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2 1986:. My view also has grounds in many areas of 815:And yet no one has added such a paragraph. 8: 1870:, my way of thinking with BLP is that if an 1174:Note: This debate has been included in the 672:- reliable sourcing exists for the article. 388:may be appropriate. 09:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 637:), however distasteful the subject may be. 1760:, it has been clearly created in order to 1173: 1370:I was unaware that editor revulsion at a 2494:- per Carrite and Hoary directly above. 1966:for the same reasons I expressed at the 1876:exists on something that should just be 1654:, leaving behind a short mention in the 2586: 207:. Again, read the full discussion at 1970:discussion. The entire concept is a 1528:It fills a necessary void. (M.Twain) 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 1764:about another unrelated article. — 1374:was sufficient reason for deletion. 336:I'll repeat what I said at the DRV: 195:. The article's sourcing is weak ( 2381:- limited usage and limited note. 1885:the current sources fail miserably 24: 2154:Campaign for "santorum" neologism 1968:Campaign for "santorum" neologism 1673:Campaign for "santorum" neologism 193:Campaign for "santorum" neologism 2594:"The slow-burning Polanski saga" 2216:Don Van Natta Jr. (1999-10-17). 1205:about it into another article.-- 2555:- not notable as a neologism. 1717:Campaign for lewinsky neologism 707:already covered elsewhere, and 1: 1116:, and do it now, not later.— 1108:there isn't anything left. 495:shoved aside, it was not a 2636: 1234:is practically deafening. 949:Knowledge (XXG):BLP_zealot 2563:07:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 2548:02:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 2521:23:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2504:01:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC) 2417:this one while your at it 2279:List of sexual neologisms 939:calls for the removal of 898:the best solution. I do 203:, or else as part of her 53:19:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC) 2573:Please do not modify it. 2487:15:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2468:00:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 2441:16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 2408:06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 2391:04:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC) 2374:23:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2353:22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2326:01:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2314:22:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2291:22:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2270:21:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2233:21:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2206:19:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2183:18:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2166:17:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2145:15:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2128:14:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2090:16:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 2040:14:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 2007:13:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 1959:11:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 1941:10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 1911:08:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 1899:02:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC) 1859:20:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC) 1844:23:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1824:19:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1805:18:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1787:17:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1769:16:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1746:15:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1703:14:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1689:14:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1647:13:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1629:07:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1590:04:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1573:04:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1556:03:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1538:22:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1517:23:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1500:20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1490:. Sorry, just venting.-- 1471:19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1454:17:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1411:03:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC) 1384:18:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1366:17:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1348:16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1318:16:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1283:17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1265:17:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1244:16:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1215:15:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1191:13:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1165:12:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1134:11:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1091:09:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1057:08:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1040:07:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 1023:05:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 999:05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 984:04:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 969:04:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 927:14:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 912:02:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 880:02:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 856:02:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 829:11:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 811:02:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 789:01:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 762:01:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 732:00:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 699:00:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 682:00:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 665:00:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 647:23:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 624:23:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 599:14:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 585:23:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 557:00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 515:22:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 461:00:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC) 431:22:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 413:22:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 382:21:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 357:22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 332:22:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 318:22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 304:22:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 287:22:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 262:22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 228:23:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 2152:both this article and 2429:► Talk to the Vorlons 2252:and was surprised at 2250:looked at the sources 1548:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 342:The consensus was to 2600:. 28 September 2009. 2214:Here's a reference: 2109:Santorum (neologism) 2064:I'll !vote to merge 1783:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 1713:into the language. 1077:, which is based in 945:questionably sourced 70:Lewinsky (neologism) 62:Lewinsky (neologism) 2277:to a newly created 488:wiktionary:cameltoe 272:a confirmation AFD 197:see this discussion 2619:. 10 October 2009. 2616:The New York Times 2254:how good they were 1563:per Wikidemon. -- 1306:The New York Times 44:The result was 2609:Cieply, Michael. 2502: 2220:. New York Times. 2204: 2135:per JakeInJoisey 2038: 2005: 1964:Delete (or merge) 1897: 1802: 1724: 1687: 1671:. It's not like 1193: 1179: 1168: 1151:comment added by 1132: 1037: 480:UNBLOCK KIWI BOMB 411: 2627: 2620: 2607: 2601: 2591: 2575: 2544: 2539: 2534: 2498: 2453: 2439: 2436: 2430: 2425: 2362:reliable sources 2335:Lewinsky scandal 2301:Lewinsky scandal 2221: 2198: 2113:Lewinsky scandal 2088: 2087: 2083: 2076: 2037: 2035: 2024: 2004: 2002: 1991: 1937: 1933: 1925: 1895: 1891: 1800: 1784: 1778:Lewinsky scandal 1744: 1743: 1739: 1732: 1721:Urban Dictionary 1714: 1680: 1656:Lewinsky scandal 1620: 1610:Lewinsky scandal 1509:Richard-of-Earth 1463:Richard-of-Earth 1409: 1406: 1401: 1396: 1346: 1343: 1338: 1333: 1298:Lewinsky scandal 1224:Lewinsky scandal 1180: 1167: 1145: 1124: 1122: 1106:Lewinsky scandal 1102:Lewinsky scandal 1067:Lewinsky scandal 1035: 1018: 1012:Lewinsky scandal 892:Lewinsky scandal 825: 820: 803: 785: 780: 775: 768:Lewinsky scandal 758: 753: 742:Lewinsky scandal 728: 723: 718: 453: 402: 386:Lewinsky scandal 220: 201:Lewinsky scandal 178: 177: 163: 111: 93: 34: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2608: 2604: 2592: 2588: 2584: 2578:deletion review 2571: 2542: 2537: 2532: 2450: 2434: 2428: 2423: 2420: 2215: 2085: 2079: 2071: 2069: 2033: 2025: 2000: 1992: 1935: 1927: 1923: 1893: 1836:HominidMachinae 1782: 1741: 1735: 1727: 1725: 1618: 1404: 1399: 1394: 1390: 1341: 1336: 1331: 1327: 1146: 1118: 1049:HominidMachinae 1016: 900:oppose deletion 823: 818: 809: 798: 783: 778: 773: 756: 751: 746:Monica Lewinsky 726: 721: 716: 459: 448: 226: 215: 120: 84: 68: 65: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2633: 2631: 2622: 2621: 2602: 2585: 2583: 2582: 2566: 2565: 2550: 2523: 2506: 2489: 2471: 2470: 2443: 2410: 2393: 2376: 2355: 2328: 2316: 2293: 2272: 2256:. The other, 2242:Very weak keep 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2209: 2208: 2185: 2168: 2147: 2130: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2052:, the other a 2043: 2042: 2010: 2009: 1961: 1943: 1915: 1914: 1901: 1873:entire article 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1851:Jewishprincess 1827: 1826: 1816:Jewishprincess 1808: 1807: 1789: 1771: 1748: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1661:Gerrymandering 1649: 1631: 1592: 1575: 1558: 1540: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1503: 1502: 1474: 1473: 1456: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1368: 1351: 1350: 1320: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1268: 1267: 1247: 1246: 1217: 1195: 1194: 1170: 1169: 1138: 1137: 1079:Elbridge Gerry 1075:Gerrymandering 1060: 1059: 1042: 1025: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 956:Roman Polanski 931: 930: 929: 882: 859: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 804: 735: 734: 701: 684: 667: 649: 627: 626: 611: 610: 603: 602: 601: 568:Very weak keep 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 531: 530: 529: 528: 476:Weak Transwiki 468: 467: 466: 465: 464: 463: 454: 436: 435: 434: 433: 389: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 349:Michaeldsuarez 310:Michaeldsuarez 265: 264: 249: 248: 247: 236: 221: 181: 180: 117: 64: 59: 57: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2632: 2618: 2617: 2612: 2606: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2590: 2587: 2581: 2579: 2574: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2558: 2554: 2551: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2540: 2535: 2527: 2524: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2490: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2473: 2472: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2447: 2444: 2442: 2437: 2431: 2426: 2418: 2414: 2411: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2394: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2377: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2356: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2336: 2332: 2329: 2327: 2324: 2320: 2317: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2294: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2273: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2243: 2240: 2239: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2219: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2207: 2202: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2186: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2169: 2167: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2131: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2101:Strong delete 2099: 2098: 2091: 2084: 2082: 2077: 2075: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2041: 2036: 2030: 2029: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2008: 2003: 1997: 1996: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1957: 1956: 1951: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1938: 1932: 1931: 1926: 1920: 1917: 1916: 1912: 1909: 1905: 1902: 1900: 1896: 1890: 1886: 1881: 1880: 1875: 1874: 1869: 1868:Strong delete 1866: 1865: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1797: 1793: 1790: 1788: 1785: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1756: 1752: 1749: 1747: 1740: 1738: 1733: 1731: 1722: 1718: 1711: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1686: 1683: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1635: 1632: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1617: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1602: 1596: 1593: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1576: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1559: 1557: 1553: 1549: 1544: 1541: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1457: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1419: 1412: 1408: 1407: 1402: 1397: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358:John lilburne 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1349: 1345: 1344: 1339: 1334: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1308:for example. 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1292: 1291: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1218: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1197: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1177: 1172: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1143: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1121: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1073:. Similar to 1072: 1068: 1064: 1063:Keep or merge 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1043: 1041: 1038: 1033: 1029: 1026: 1024: 1021: 1019: 1013: 1009: 1006: 1000: 996: 992: 987: 986: 985: 982: 979: 976: 972: 971: 970: 966: 962: 959: 957: 950: 946: 942: 938: 935: 932: 928: 924: 920: 915: 914: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 887: 883: 881: 878: 875: 872: 867: 863: 860: 857: 853: 849: 845: 842: 841: 830: 827: 826: 821: 814: 813: 812: 808: 802: 796: 792: 791: 790: 787: 786: 781: 776: 769: 765: 764: 763: 760: 759: 754: 747: 743: 739: 738: 737: 736: 733: 730: 729: 724: 719: 712: 708: 705: 702: 700: 696: 692: 688: 685: 683: 679: 675: 671: 668: 666: 662: 658: 653: 650: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 629: 628: 625: 621: 617: 613: 612: 607: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 587: 586: 582: 578: 574: 569: 566: 565: 558: 554: 550: 545: 541: 537: 536: 535: 534: 533: 532: 526: 522: 518: 517: 516: 512: 508: 504: 503: 498: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 470: 469: 462: 458: 452: 446: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 437: 432: 428: 424: 420: 416: 415: 414: 410: 406: 401: 397: 393: 390: 387: 384:A mention in 383: 379: 375: 371: 368: 367: 358: 354: 350: 345: 341: 340: 335: 334: 333: 329: 325: 321: 320: 319: 315: 311: 307: 306: 305: 302: 299: 296: 291: 290: 289: 288: 284: 280: 277: 273: 269: 263: 260: 257: 254: 250: 245: 244: 242: 237: 235: 232: 231: 230: 229: 225: 219: 213: 210: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 186: 176: 172: 169: 166: 162: 158: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 139: 136: 133: 130: 126: 123: 122:Find sources: 118: 115: 109: 105: 101: 97: 92: 88: 83: 79: 75: 71: 67: 66: 63: 60: 58: 55: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2614: 2605: 2589: 2572: 2569: 2560:(let's chat) 2552: 2530: 2525: 2508: 2491: 2474: 2455: 2445: 2412: 2395: 2378: 2357: 2338: 2330: 2318: 2295: 2274: 2257: 2241: 2187: 2170: 2149: 2132: 2115: 2104: 2100: 2081:Swashbuckler 2080: 2073: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2026: 2020: 2016: 1993: 1963: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1928: 1918: 1903: 1878: 1877: 1872: 1871: 1867: 1831: 1811: 1791: 1773: 1762:make a point 1757: 1750: 1737:Swashbuckler 1736: 1729: 1715:I'd suggest 1709: 1695:Anthonyhcole 1693:Well put. -- 1651: 1633: 1624: 1615: 1613: 1608:partly into 1605: 1598: 1594: 1577: 1560: 1542: 1530:JakeInJoisey 1525: 1479: 1458: 1421: 1391: 1371: 1328: 1322: 1293: 1252: 1228:WP:BOOMERANG 1219: 1203:one sentence 1202: 1198: 1147:— Preceding 1141: 1119: 1109: 1098: 1071:WP:NOTDICDEF 1062: 1061: 1044: 1027: 1007: 952: 944: 940: 933: 899: 895: 885: 884: 861: 843: 816: 800: 794: 771: 749: 714: 706: 703: 686: 669: 651: 630: 605: 572: 567: 543: 539: 501: 500: 496: 491: 479: 475: 471: 450: 444: 418: 400:Bigtimepeace 391: 374:Anthonyhcole 369: 343: 338: 275: 271: 267: 266: 233: 217: 211: 182: 170: 164: 156: 149: 143: 137: 131: 121: 56: 45: 43: 31: 28: 2413:Delete THIS 2400:Binksternet 1984:WP:COATRACK 1634:Weak Delete 1153:Gelobet sei 1083:Enric Naval 819:Will Beback 752:Will Beback 674:Umbralcorax 268:Please note 147:free images 2398:per BARE. 2383:Off2riorob 2323:Neutrality 1978:. It's a 1678:JamesMLane 1120:S Marshall 896:maybe even 521:Off2riorob 423:Off2riorob 324:Off2riorob 279:Off2riorob 2175:Ningauble 2137:causa sui 2062:lewinsky, 1972:WP:ATTACK 1908:Lankiveil 1889:Dreadstar 1832:unsourced 1446:Wikidemon 1183:• Gene93k 1032:Sjakkalle 1017:My76Strat 941:unsourced 573:slow down 484:Camel toe 205:biography 2598:BBC News 2496:Tony Fox 2456:santorum 2306:Bus stop 2296:Deletion 2258:santorum 2196:Gamaliel 2192:Santorum 2120:Robofish 2066:santorum 2058:santorum 2050:campaign 1930:BWilkins 1879:sentence 1669:oral sex 1442:WP:POINT 1232:quacking 1161:contribs 1149:unsigned 1036:(Check!) 801:Critical 616:PhGustaf 451:Critical 409:contribs 344:overturn 218:Critical 114:View log 2479:Carrite 2366:Quigley 2283:BusterD 2262:Bearian 2246:WP:BARE 2158:Peacock 1980:WP:FORK 1710:Delete. 1665:Boycott 1480:Comment 1438:WP:DENY 1434:WP:SOCK 1376:Protonk 1372:subject 1253:Comment 991:Protonk 961:Wiwaxia 886:Keep or 657:JoshuaZ 639:Qrsdogg 609:around. 591:Protonk 577:Protonk 502:blocked 392:Comment 153:WP refs 141:scholar 87:protect 82:history 50:Spartaz 2557:Yaksar 2553:Delete 2526:Delete 2513:Mtking 2509:Delete 2500:(arf!) 2492:Delete 2475:Delete 2446:Delete 2435:Markab 2379:Delete 2319:Delete 2188:Delete 2171:Delete 2150:Delete 2133:Delete 1988:WP:NOT 1976:WP:BLP 1955:Errant 1936:←track 1812:Delete 1758:exists 1751:Delete 1676:here. 1652:Delete 1601:wp:NEO 1595:Delete 1582:Drmies 1578:Delete 1565:Khazar 1526:Delete 1488:either 1459:Delete 1440:, and 1430:WP:BLP 1426:WP:NEO 1323:Delete 1310:KayBee 1220:Delete 1199:Delete 1142:Delete 1114:WP:BLP 1110:Delete 1028:Delete 1008:Delete 937:WP:BLP 866:WP:BLP 844:Delete 711:WP:NEO 704:Delete 691:Edison 687:Delete 635:WP:NEO 606:Delete 540:per se 478:, and 370:Delete 241:WP:BLP 191:about 125:Google 91:delete 46:delete 2543:Space 2460:Hoary 2340:Kusma 2331:Merge 2275:Merge 2068:too. 2021:heard 1974:on a 1946:Merge 1924:talk→ 1919:Merge 1904:Merge 1774:Merge 1766:Coren 1755:BLP1E 1606:merge 1597:here 1561:Merge 1543:Merge 1492:Bbb23 1422:Merge 1400:COMMS 1395:ƒETCH 1337:COMMS 1332:ƒETCH 1304:from 1257:Bbb23 1207:Bbb23 934:Keep. 919:Hobit 904:Hobit 888:merge 848:olive 497:wrong 189:point 168:JSTOR 129:books 108:views 100:watch 96:links 16:< 2538:From 2533:Them 2517:talk 2483:talk 2464:talk 2424:Kosh 2415:and 2404:talk 2396:Keep 2387:talk 2370:talk 2358:Keep 2310:talk 2287:talk 2266:talk 2244:per 2229:talk 2201:talk 2179:talk 2162:talk 2141:talk 2124:talk 2054:word 2028:Ched 2017:this 1995:Ched 1982:and 1855:talk 1840:talk 1820:talk 1801:T@lk 1780:. -- 1699:talk 1643:talk 1639:Gigs 1604:and 1599:per 1586:talk 1569:talk 1552:talk 1534:talk 1513:talk 1496:talk 1486:and 1484:that 1467:talk 1450:talk 1380:talk 1362:talk 1314:talk 1294:Keep 1279:talk 1275:Tarc 1261:talk 1240:talk 1236:Tarc 1211:talk 1187:talk 1157:talk 1087:talk 1053:talk 1045:keep 995:talk 965:talk 923:talk 908:talk 852:talk 824:talk 807:Talk 757:talk 748:. 695:talk 678:talk 670:Keep 661:talk 652:keep 643:talk 631:Keep 620:talk 595:talk 581:talk 553:talk 525:talk 511:talk 472:Keep 457:Talk 427:talk 405:talk 378:talk 353:talk 328:talk 314:talk 283:talk 224:Talk 185:here 161:FENS 135:news 104:logs 78:talk 74:edit 2333:to 2225:Wnt 2116:may 2105:not 2086:.☠ 2074:Zen 1887:. 1796:JFW 1776:to 1742:.☠ 1730:Zen 1663:or 1065:to 943:or 784:466 744:or 727:466 549:Wnt 507:Wnt 492:not 486:to 407:| 396:DRV 175:TWL 112:– ( 2613:. 2596:. 2519:) 2485:) 2466:) 2438:-@ 2421:@- 2406:) 2389:) 2372:) 2351:) 2312:) 2289:) 2268:) 2231:) 2181:) 2164:) 2143:) 2126:) 2072:☯. 2034:? 2031:: 2001:? 1998:: 1939:) 1857:) 1842:) 1822:) 1798:| 1728:☯. 1701:) 1645:) 1588:) 1571:) 1554:) 1536:) 1515:) 1498:) 1469:) 1452:) 1436:, 1382:) 1364:) 1316:) 1281:) 1263:) 1242:) 1213:) 1189:) 1181:— 1178:. 1163:) 1159:• 1089:) 1055:) 1014:. 997:) 967:) 951:: 925:) 910:) 854:) 805:__ 795:BE 697:) 680:) 663:) 645:) 622:) 597:) 583:) 555:) 544:do 513:) 474:, 455:__ 445:BE 429:) 403:| 380:) 355:) 347:-- 330:) 316:) 285:) 222:__ 212:BE 155:) 106:| 102:| 98:| 94:| 89:| 85:| 80:| 76:| 2515:( 2481:( 2462:( 2432:► 2402:( 2385:( 2368:( 2349:c 2347:· 2345:t 2343:( 2308:( 2285:( 2264:( 2227:( 2203:) 2199:( 2177:( 2160:( 2139:( 2122:( 1913:. 1894:☥ 1853:( 1838:( 1818:( 1792:D 1697:( 1685:c 1682:t 1641:( 1621:o 1619:e 1616:R 1584:( 1567:( 1550:( 1532:( 1511:( 1494:( 1465:( 1448:( 1405:/ 1392:/ 1378:( 1360:( 1342:/ 1329:/ 1312:( 1277:( 1259:( 1238:( 1209:( 1185:( 1155:( 1130:C 1128:/ 1126:T 1085:( 1051:( 993:( 981:M 978:H 975:L 963:( 954:" 921:( 906:( 877:M 874:H 871:L 858:) 850:( 799:— 797:— 779:N 774:J 722:N 717:J 693:( 676:( 659:( 641:( 618:( 593:( 579:( 551:( 527:) 523:( 509:( 449:— 447:— 425:( 376:( 351:( 326:( 312:( 301:M 298:H 295:L 281:( 259:M 256:H 253:L 216:— 214:— 179:) 171:· 165:· 157:· 150:· 144:· 138:· 132:· 127:( 119:( 116:) 110:) 72:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Lewinsky (neologism) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index