610:
consisting of evaluating the ability of a test in a biased group of values, which leads to an overestimate of the sensitivity and specificity of the test. Alternatively, the bias of an estimator is the difference between an estimator's expectation and the true value of the parameter being estimated. Omitted-variable bias is the bias that appears in estimates of parameters in a regression analysis when the assumed specification is incorrect, in that it omits an independent variable that should be in the model. therefore, in present article, what is the independent variable in these tables? Can anybody answer? We are also dealing here with (i) systematic bias which is characterised by external influences that may affect the accuracy of statistical measurements and (ii) data-snooping bias which comes from the misuse of data techniques. As a result, due to the preferred sources by one editor, Berlin battle may appear as the one with most casualties and eventually imply that all of them were German and all dead, which is not necessarily true. The same applies to all other entries.
1827:
definition, there is a novel analysis and synthesis for which no reliable source exists (I am referring to the made up tables and lists). How many different sources are there and how many conflicting views regarding exact numbers of dead, wounded, nationalities involved??? Therefore, here again, I repeat, the WP policies should take precedence and this article be deleted. However, the articles pertaining to a particular battle may each mention the number of casualties, criteria used to define those casualties, opposed views and other different estimates. One more time, and here I'm repeating the very users who commented on this page, these are all unclear common criteria absent estimates. Consequently, the very subject of the article containing such invented lists and tables is absent.
1377:- The lack of scientific support is right there: there are no other sources of such table and lists, unless you consider WP editors established scientists. When an editor refers to this table as an ultimate source to consider a battle "the most" or "one of the most", depending on the number retained in the table, costly in casualties - the reinvention fo history happens right there. Conspiracy theory was just part of the multiple criteria definition, please reread the above given argumentation in this regard. I'm not the only one who disagrees with numbers, there are plenty of editors who disagree with numbers already on this very deletion nomination page. An estimate is a supposition per se, you contradict yourself...
477:: I am under no illusion that this list will ultimately be kept primarily through the votes of users who have never written a comparable list and do not understand its intrinsic difficulties. The reason why a useful and objective list of battles by casualties is virtually impossible is a straightforward one: a list can only be sorted by one value for each entry, but for most battles in history casuality numbers are wild guesses, so the order of any list will always heavily depend on which estimate is preferred over all the others. You take another set of secondary sources and the whole order could be, no, will be completely different. It is a useless exercise, as useless as
757:, not disputing references. If source A says that 200,000 people died in a battle and source B says that 250,000, does that make one depart from the standard and commonly excepted norm? There is no real norm for such wide ranging estimates, and 50,000 is well within the margin of error, depending on how recent the conflict was and how well it was recorded historically. Now, if one of them was claiming that two million Japanese were killed at Iwo Jima, that would be a fringe theory (I doubt a million men could even fit on that island). I also note again that most of the sources appear to be reliable and respectable sources.
872:
several of the sources are indeed referenced multiple times, which would seem to go toward your argument. The distinction here is on the presence of a conclusion, and possibly in the case of lists, comparative judgment. But when it comes to raw data, you can't argue bias except in the case of the individual statistics being flawed. Tying them together is not inherantly biased unless the data is arranged to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. Simply put, this list doesn't violate SYNTH because it doesn't advance a position.
727:. Here again, please revisit the current wording of the Knowledge (XXG) rule in this regard. Unless it has chaged since yesterday, it didn't become silly since it was adopted by a good number of Wikipedians. As for the numbers, for example, just type in Leningrad casualties in Google and see how many different numbers appear. Why namely the one retained in the list was considered? The same applies to all the other entries. Do you want to check all existing sources with all different numbers and count an average for all entries?
845:
question whether there is or not a norm regarding the error margin is not an issue, as per WP rules a mere speculation is enough, and we definitely do have much more than mere speculation regarding these numbers and the way they are represented in the table (no differentiation between nationalities, dead, wounded, etc...). Again, you are missing the point, each entry
1485:
other editors in thier votes. As a last ditch attempt, I encourage you to take a look at a few featured lists, and see if you find your interpretation of SYNTH being applied there. In closing, I will express my gratitude in that you have remained quite civil and approachable/open throughout the process, a behavior that is often sadly lacking on
Knowledge (XXG).
1422:- I'm not contesting individual entries. Again, your argumentation in this regard is irrelevant. This is not being discussed here. I'm contesting the made up tables and lists with no clear criteria. However, numerous users have raised the question of individual entries here: indeed, the individual numbers themselves are all subject to contestation.
822:. Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all significant views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this guideline and the content policies,
1780:
to see any. I can't. Looking at the references, the only thing that gives me a hint is the possible comparison of deaths caused by Stalin and Hitler, and the controversy of the role of the USSR in the eventual victory--and some of the links given in the argument suggest that's what is involved. But nothing in the article goes into this.
1643:- Doesn't violate WP:SYN and is a useful and informative list. Although I do agree with Peterkingiron that I was expecting the list to be in ordered by number of casualties. Perhaps it should be renamed or the list rearranged. Either way this is the only real (and minor) problem with the article and it isn't a reason for deletion.
288:; rather, basing a conclusion off of these facts would be (thus why the header of the SYN section includes the words "that advances a position"). Merely presenting the statistics (especially in a range when the refs are inconsistant) is simply a NPOV way of presenting the facts without advancing a position. See also
786:
invented and synthesized on WP lists and not the separate numbers in each article regarding this or that battle. And if the purpose of these lists and tables is not to draw a conclusion, then what it is? Speaking of a concrete example how people draw conclusions, please have a look at how much is written regarding
389:
agree with one point made by the nominator, which is that "casualties" is an ambiguous concept. Even the article itself has the caveat that "Figures display numbers of all types of casualties when available (killed, wounded, missing, and sick) but may only include number killed." I'm sorry, but that is
1823:
Jointly these say that articles should not contain any novel analysis or synthesis, that material likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, and that all significant views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. Should any inconsistency arise between this
1813:
As for the
Coatrack, I have clearly specified what it is for. You haven't contested any of my arguments in this respect, hence I presume you adhere to what I said in this regard as well as to the applicable WP Coatrack rules and definition. (please see above) I am not sure where exactly have you seen
853:
Taking into account the presently applicable and herein explained
Knowledge (XXG) policies, this article should be deleted, since, in accordance with the very same Knowledge (XXG) policies, not only it should be deleted, but it shouldn't even be modified, taking into account the present bias, absence
801:
Here, the nominal subject would be an exact number of casualties (themselves undefined), the biased content is well explained just above, and since you haven't argued against it, I understand that you fully adhere to all the bias present in this article. Moreover, WP rules on COATRACK provide for the
656:
Again, your argument for SYN doesn't apply because the list doesn't imply a conclusion. It merely says what the sources said, A and B, without introducing C. And merely having conflicting sources doesn't imply that the list should be deleted, or we'd be AfDing 90% of the articles on anything notable;
583:
is not referenced. What is referenced are different numbers in each line. By the way, different sources provide different numbers and different values for those numbers. There is no value-number unity even in the separate numbers, and even less in entire tables. The synthesis of these numbers results
481:
by population where the listed number for the
Persian Empire is singled out for no obvious reason from ten other figures which were relegated to the footnotes. But undoubtedly people will finally have convinced themselves that the established order is a bit more objective, and so we will have another
664:
I think the FRINGE argument is just silly. If you think the statistics are wrong, then provide some reliable sources of your own and have them corrected. To say that the Battle of Berlin was a bloody affair is certainly not a deviation from the prevalent view (BTW, I'm not sure why you argue against
609:
is concerned, there is clearly an error of mixture of different values represented as one in these tables. It includes sampling bias, in which some numbers and values pertaining to this or that type of casualties are more likely to be included than others. This is parallel to a typical spectrum bias
590:
Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would
499:
The list is obviously useful to wikipedia editors and encyclopedic, and should be included on wikipedia. Figures that included should from academic, reliable sources, in order to satisfy
Knowledge (XXG)'s NPOV policy. Just because only wild estimates are available does not mean we should not include
1779:
FRINGE, but what's fringy about battles having casualties? All the sources listed count as RS--(I cannot judge the
Chinese ones, of course) The challenger says " looking at these lists and tables, one clearly sees speculation on multiple historical issues - ". However, nobody else has been able
879:
Where is the lack of scientific support? Where is the reinvention of history? Where is the conspiracy theory? Where does referenced data because a fringe thoery (besides where you disagree with it)? These estimates are not conjecture or supposition, these are respected historians who arrive at them
849:
is not contested here, although one can easily contest each of the indicated numbers as well. What is proposed to be deleted is the article inventing new tables, organising and sorting questionable numbers in even more, newly invented, questionable lists and tables with obscure or rather no sorting
407:
I added that sentence, and the problem is that most sources simply list all casualties. If I were to remove all the entries for which I did not have a source that listed only the number killed, or separate numbers for killed and total casualties, the list would be eviscerated and have fewer entries
1809:
Again, the information is not sourced. The article contains tables and lists and those are not sourced as such. The subject is significant and nobody contests this. What is contested is the notion of subject: what is the exact subject of the article, what is the exact common value for building the
875:
You've made my point for me: the list covers exactly what it purports to. There is no deception or tangental manuevering. You can claim the data is flawed or biased, but that doesn't make the article a coatrack. The lead paragraph specifically states that the numbers given are estimates, not exact
393:
helpful-- pick one or the other, dammit. No, AfD is not for cleanup, but I'm glad when it shakes people out of the complacency about a mess. The people who are interested in maintaining the list need to do some serious thinking about which direction to go next. If it were entirely up to me, the
388:
table (something that wasn't possible until the last year or so), this could simply be called "list of battles". This is what a list on
Knowledge (XXG) should aspire to, which is sourcing each and every item on the list. I'm glad to see the deletion proposal being booed off the stage, although I
1826:
The historical speculation is right in these tables, which purport establishing a ranking of undefined casualties toll, which further serves as a basis and reference by itself for other articles and editors (see above the described example with Siege of
Leningrad article). Pursuant to the very WP
1585:
Quite an encyclopedic topic, obviously. In World War 2 armies on both sides did keep track of how many people they had that died in each battle, so I doubt those stats are in question. For the rest, you just reference the most trustworthy source. If necessary you can add in two numbers, saying
871:
Your argument seems to be that a list that isn't sourced by a single reference is synth? That is absurd; as the goal for multiple independant reliable sources is one of the conerstones of
Knowledge (XXG)'s referencing policy. Multiple independant sources doesn't make SYTH or OR; and incidentally,
785:
Your argumentation seems irrelevant. Please, reread my lines just above, there is no source for these tables and lists, there are sources (and unfortunately all giving different number indications) for each separate entry, but again, what is proposed to be deleted is this article containing these
745:
The sorting defaults to chronological order, not by casualty. If a reader draws a conclusion on thier own based on raw data, how can that be considered biased? If you claim that the data is being manipulated to lead to a certain conclusion, then go ahead un-manipulate it. I also have to note that
696:
My argument does apply because the list items are sorted from maximum to minumum casualties, including other criteria. There is always a conclusion looking at any table - the most casualties took place in X or Y. When I'm speaking of conflicting sources, I'm referring to the sources in respect of
660:
I think you missed the point of COATRACK, unless you are implying that the author deliberately sought to subtly manipulate the data for some sort of nefarious scheme... what, I couldn't tell you. A bias in the data collection does not imply coatrack (which is a deceptive subject), that's merely a
1484:
I think at this point, we've come to an impasse, and more kilobytes of conversation probably won't be productive. I disagree with your rationale, find your reasoning to be a flawed interpretation of policy and guideline, and it seems that neither of us shall convince the other, nor probably sway
844:
Presenting a list, one speaks of exact numbers or defines a nominal common value for all entries, otherwise it's enough to mention in each separate article about each battle the appropriate number guesses and explain where do they come from, however one can't invent a common table out of it. The
1775:
the assertion,confusingly listed as part of
Coatrack, that the data was not compiled on a single consistent basis. (I gather this is the meaning of the statistical nonsense about hidden variables--that something else may have affected the casualty count; but this would be true only of an
1543:
of work (for instance, on the basis of a few spot checks the figures for many battles don't match those in the article on the battle and there needs to be a cut-off minimum number of casualties for battles to be included in the article) but these issues can be resolved via normal editing and
635:
description of ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have little or no scientific support, esoteric claims about medicine, novel
716:, here again, please revisit the relevant Knowledge (XXG) page with explanations and instructions. Pursuant to the existing wording of the aforesaid rule as of today, a bias does imply a coatrack. You may certainly propose to change the rules in accordance with your interpretation.
543:
accusation based, as "mixture of separate numbers" is rather silly when every single number is backed up with a valid source. Estimates may vary, it is normal - this is the way science often works - but in no way is presenting the numbers a synthesis. Furthermore, I cannot see how
431:. A good way to organise the information. I imagine there are a lot of people who want to know which battles killed the most people, but they don't want to go trawling around Knowledge (XXG) or the rest of the net trying to find the answers. If this should be deleted, then perhaps
760:
Ultimately, I think that would belong on the talk page, but you'd have to enumerate where you think the list is inaccurate or misleading, and then make discussion and consensus on what to display. I might suggest posting upper and lower limits, as well as a typical average.
1562:
When adding things to the list, I did not add battles with fewer than 10,000 casualties. Seeing as I added probably around 90% of the entries here, that kind of became the de facto minimum. Sorry if I should have stated that in the article, I didn't think of it. –
749:
I think it is rather you who needs to re-read COATRACK. The opening line defines it as a misleading article purporting to be about A, but really is about B. There's no interpretation there. This article is exactly what it purports to be: a list of battles by
1810:
tables and lists? Furthermore, sources provided for individual entries are all based on different type of criteria, research (if any at all). What is contested is the list per se, as scientifically it does not exist, at least the way it is presented on WP.
1151:- Exactly, and the reader does reach a very specific clear conclusion, have a look at the provided above references in respect of the Siege of Leningrad article. As a a matter of fact, a reader does adhere to the advanced by this invented table position.
1106:- Both presence of conclusion and comparative judgment are clearly present and have been already contested and discussed by edtiors (see above for references). That's exactly how the bias comes in - through obscure, flawed and criteria absent statistics.
723:, personally, I don't think calling my argument "silly" gives you more credit, but anyway, looking at these lists and tables, one clearly sees speculation on multiple historical issues - what fully corresponds to the current definition as per
638:. It goes without saying that this article with its biased lists includes numerous speculations about interpretations of history, and namely numbers of casualties and their relevant values, nations who suffered the most or the least, etc...
191:
I suggest deleting this article as, even though sourced in respect of separate data, the entire tables, which are not sourced per se, consisiting of a mixture of separate numbers, constiute violation of the following Knowledge (XXG) rule:
1359:
Where is the lack of scientific support? Where is the reinvention of history? Where is the conspiracy theory? Where does referenced data because a fringe thoery (besides where you disagree with it)? These estimates are not conjecture or
160:
591:
be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article.
517:
I do not agree with the nominator's claims of 'synth" "coatrack" or "fringe" and see the list as an appropriate one, presenting historic and encyclopedic information in a manner which helps organize it and facilitates search.
1088:
The distinction here is on the presence of a conclusion, and possibly in the case of lists, comparative judgment. But when it comes to raw data, you can't argue bias except in the case of the individual statistics being
1060:- again you are missing the point. Not only each number entry may be contested, as already have done commentators on this very page, but what is being contested is this article containing invented lists by WP users.
705:. What we need for these tables and lists - are the sources and references for already existing tables and lists with a clear compatible and applicable to this article criteria (nominal unit). Please, revisit the
1756:
The information is sourced. The subject is significant. The items in the list have or should have Knowledge (XXG) articles or substantial parts of them. Some of the nominator's arguments for deletion are rather
1269:
The lead paragraph specifically states that the numbers given are estimates, not exact numbers (incidentally, any reader with more than two brain cells to rub together wouldn't have to be told this explicitly)
1241:- Ok, sounds like that kind of argumentation: "whatever you say, I don't like it and won't agree just because!". That doesn't give any credit to your argumentation. Please refer, like I did, to WP rules.
730:
I'm not really fighting, just applying Knowledge (XXG) prescriptions. The scope of the article seems simply impossible to attain, although your proposal to improve is very interesting, but HOW and WHAT
1789:
is the coatrack. The only other editor supporting deletion is a respected editor, though which some tendency to go off on tangents of his own--I do not question his good faith in the slightest.
1134:
Tying them together is not inherantly biased unless the data is arranged to lead the reader to a specific conclusion. Simply put, this list doesn't violate SYNTH because it doesn't advance a position
804:
It is inappropriate to "even out the percentage of bias". These are considered scarves, hats, and gloves, and along with the coats, obscure the coatrack, and are also good candidates for removal.
661:
cleanup issue and not an AfD one. I see on the talk page that no attempts have been made to address this issue, which is simply shameful to suggest burning down a dirty house before cleaning it.
1331:-A & B argumentation was not argued here. It's not clear to me what's the purpose of advancing this undiscussed issue? It's about historical speculation here, please see above as explained.
552:
apply (first is an essay, not guideline). What is the "tangentially related biased subject" in case of this list? What fringe theory do solidly sourced non-commented numbers promote? --
154:
876:
numbers (incidentally, any reader with more than two brain cells to rub together wouldn't have to be told this explicitly), meaning that there is no attempt to appear A but discuss B.
482:
list which does not reflect historical truth and accuracy but merely the bias of the latest editor who bothered to edit it. This list is Knowledge (XXG) in its best trash sense.
1043:
Multiple independant sources doesn't make SYTH or OR; and incidentally, several of the sources are indeed referenced multiple times, which would seem to go toward your argument.
115:
340:
seems like a reasonable way to organise this information. The numbers themselves and how to source them can be worked out on the talk page, but the list's concept is sound.
1405:
these are respected historians who arrive at them through study and research. If you dispute the individual estimates, then take it to the talk page and find a better one.
260:
88:
83:
248:
92:
799:
A coatrack article is a Knowledge (XXG) article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related biased subject.
453:
120:
75:
1816:
Coatrack articles can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject
408:
than it did before I started building it up. While I agree that what you're saying would be better, if the sources for that are out there, I don't have them. –
1516:
Almost anyone who cares to check the numbers knows that they are estimates. But frankly, an estimate made by a good source is better than no estimate at all. —
925:- again, wrong understanding for unknwon to me reasons. This article was put up exactly for the reasons exlained above, and namely violation of three WP rules.
1814:
and what exactly do you understand under the alleged by you "cause" requirement pursuant to the currently applicable WP rules. The definition is quite clear:
1776:
argument that did assign some cause to this, while this is merely a list of numbers based on sources, not an attempt at determining causation or correlation.
1286:- Again, the articles, lacks the very core, the subject, the very common value, which is even more important in statistics and comparative tables and lists.
1821:
regarding Fringe, there again, you are reading in between the lines and there again you have referred to no WP rule whatsoever. I'll do it again for you:
1622:. However, I am not sure how useful the article is while it is sorted in date order. At present it is "list of battles and sieges with casualties", not
665:
an implication of German dead when the article doesn't differentiate the nationality of the casualties; such an implication simply doesn't exist, and the
1586:
20000-25000 if one says 20,000, and another says 25,000. This is what the Knowledge (XXG) exist for. Good job to those who created and worked on it.
1769:
the assertion that arranging a list of things in numerical order is SYN; it's just this type of arrangement which is the normal counterexample to SYN.
908:
What? Are you serious? You put this up for deletion because you seemed to be against consensus at one of the individual articles? That's pretty cheap.
868:
What? Are you serious? You put this up for deletion because you seemed to be against consensus at one of the individual articles? That's pretty cheap.
615:
can be created purposefully to promote a particular bias, and they can accidentally evolve through excessive focus on one aspect of the subject.
1544:
discussion on the talk page. I'm unable to see any discussion of the nominator's concerns there prior to this being nominated for deletion.
175:
1676:
1672:
142:
1224:
There is no deception or tangental manuevering. You can claim the data is flawed or biased, but that doesn't make the article a coatrack.
998:
That is absurd; as the goal for multiple independant reliable sources is one of the conerstones of Knowledge (XXG)'s referencing policy.
284:: I disagree that this violates SYN. Simply having a multitude of sources, some of them conflicting, does not constitute synthesis or
79:
17:
1497:
895:
773:
684:
304:
815:
706:
613:
Therefore, taking into account all of the aforesaid, here again, it fully correpsonds to the definition of coatrack articles which
1836:
1800:
1746:
1714:
1690:
1652:
1635:
1609:
1574:
1553:
1531:
1504:
1476:
1431:
1386:
1340:
1295:
1250:
1205:
1160:
1115:
1069:
1024:
979:
934:
902:
863:
780:
740:
691:
647:
558:
527:
509:
491:
468:
443:
419:
398:
376:
359:
332:
311:
275:
237:
136:
57:
636:
re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed may be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations.
746:
most of the numbers are taken from a small handful of sources, making SYNTH harder to prove when they are uniformly drawn.
672:
Sounds like effort would be better spent repairing the supposed shortcomeings, rather than fighting to kill it with fire.
132:
71:
63:
880:
through study and research. If you dispute the individual estimates, then take it to the talk page and find a better one.
1851:
36:
323:
but I also realise that the deletion of all of them would be a catastrophy of epic proportions in Knowledge (XXG). --
182:
394:
number would be limited to those killed in battle, with a separate column for total number of killed and wounded.
432:
1850:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
830:
while identifying fringe theories, examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific
500:
it, as it reflects the current state of scholarship (or else all our astronomy articles will have to go, lol).
1631:
487:
478:
148:
808:
Unfortunately you haven't revisited the relevant pages. Speaking of fringe theories, Knowledge (XXG) says
505:
289:
1015:- not relavant to the argumentation for deletion nomination of this article, nor is this contested at all
1832:
1742:
1495:
1472:
1427:
1382:
1336:
1291:
1246:
1201:
1156:
1111:
1065:
1020:
975:
930:
893:
859:
811:
771:
736:
682:
643:
302:
233:
213:
201:
1730:
713:
606:
599:
545:
221:
1626:
casualties. To fit the title, it would need to be ordered by the number of casualties, not by date.
797:
Here again, you haven't shown any exact wording you were referring to. I will do it for you. WP says:
1665:
535:. For a list, it is unusually well referenced, to a point where the article could be nominated for a
53:
1524:
553:
168:
1734:
724:
720:
630:
623:
549:
225:
1627:
483:
204:) 11:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Just to make sure everybody undrestands correctly, the violation of
1675:, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per
1648:
788:
only one person's conclusions in relation to this article containing invented lists and tables
697:
separate numbers. The tables as they are present in the article, by way of the aforementioned
501:
464:
372:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1828:
1738:
1587:
1549:
1487:
1468:
1423:
1378:
1332:
1287:
1242:
1197:
1152:
1107:
1061:
1016:
971:
926:
885:
855:
763:
732:
674:
666:
639:
523:
294:
271:
229:
216:) 13:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) The further debate goes, I realize in fact that not only rule:
209:
197:
1785:
In summary, I am not sure whether to consider this a good faith nomination, or whether the
1722:
1700:
1196:- I'am afraid you haven't read this talk page. I'm not sure where I have made your point???
698:
585:
573:
540:
320:
217:
205:
193:
1704:
1680:
1569:
754:
414:
319:: I am not a fan of wikilists of numbers because I have always found them on the verge of
49:
1726:
1619:
792:
basing on these invented lists as an ultimate source for the "truth" and proper reference
702:
536:
285:
953:
Your argument seems to be that a list that isn't sourced by a single reference is synth?
1517:
437:
395:
341:
328:
810:
The governing policies regarding fringe theories are the three core content policies,
1796:
819:
1644:
854:
of a commonly applicable clear nominal value, hence the very object of the article.
460:
368:
109:
1772:
COATRACK, but what is it a coatrack for? The challenger was not able to specify.
1545:
519:
267:
1564:
883:
Lastly, please don't refactor the discussion. It's harder to follow that way.
409:
1450:
Lastly, please don't refactor the discussion. It's harder to follow that way.
657:
for the most part, ranges are given when significant discrepancies are found.
324:
228:. Please, do consider application of all the three rules in your answers.
208:
consists in the fact that no sources are available for the made up tables.
1791:
1179:
You've made my point for me: the list covers exactly what it purports to.
584:
in the freely made up by editors tables. This perfectly responds to the
753:
Again, you seem to be twisting the guidelines. FRINGE refers to actual
1766:
the assertion that although the data is references the article is not.
367:- I don't think it violates WP:SYN or any other policies/guidelines.
1824:
guideline and the content policies, the policies take precedence.
838:. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be
1844:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1618:
This is an interesting piece of work, a compilation rather than
539:
with a fairly little work. I do not understand on what is the
1314:
meaning that there is no attempt to appear A but discuss B.
1661:: The article under discussion here has been flagged for
1721:
Could you please bother to explain how clearly was the
794:
may create a very dangerous precedent of invented lists.
791:
787:
105:
101:
97:
167:
435:
should be too—but it shouldn't—because it is useful.
181:
48:- Simply no support for nom's position on this one
832:theories but have little or no scientific support
629:Along with the above explained bias appears also
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1854:). No further edits should be made to this page.
836:novel re-interpretations of history and so forth
701:should be also examined under a larger scope of
261:list of Military-related deletion discussions
8:
249:list of History-related deletion discussions
1657:
454:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
448:
255:
243:
1467:- I hope it's better to follow this way.
840:hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations
452:: This debate has been included in the
259:: This debate has been included in the
247:: This debate has been included in the
1699:- Nominator has clearly misinterpreted
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
816:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
707:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
384:and here's why. Now that this is a
834:, esoteric claims about medicine,
497:Overwhelming keep and speedy close
24:
564:Delete (nominator's explanations)
669:gives a number not too far off).
1725:misinterpreted? And what about
828:Further, Knowledge (XXG) says,
1:
588:definition and requirements:
72:List of battles by casualties
64:List of battles by casualties
824:the policies take precedence
220:is violated, but also rule:
1837:09:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
1801:04:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
1747:08:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
1505:20:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
58:12:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
1871:
1715:18:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1691:18:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1653:16:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
1636:20:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
1610:17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
1575:15:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
1554:02:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
1532:14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
1477:14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1432:14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1387:14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1341:14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1296:14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1251:14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1206:14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1161:14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1116:14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1070:14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
1025:14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
980:14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
935:14:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
903:19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
864:09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
781:16:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
741:13:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
692:11:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
648:10:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
559:09:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
528:04:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
510:00:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
492:21:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
469:18:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
444:17:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
420:17:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
399:14:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
377:13:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
360:12:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
333:11:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
312:11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
276:11:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
238:22:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
433:List of natural disasters
1847:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1673:Article Rescue Squadron
479:list of largest empires
290:User:Bahamut0013/CSIOR
1539:This article needs a
812:Neutral point of view
712:In respect of the
44:The result was
1693:
1502:
900:
778:
689:
471:
457:
309:
286:original research
278:
264:
252:
1862:
1849:
1712:
1711:
1708:
1688:
1687:
1684:
1677:ARS instructions
1670:
1664:
1606:
1603:
1600:
1597:
1594:
1591:
1572:
1567:
1529:
1522:
1503:
1494:
1490:
901:
892:
888:
779:
770:
766:
690:
681:
677:
556:
458:
440:
417:
412:
357:
354:
351:
348:
310:
301:
297:
265:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1852:deletion review
1845:
1709:
1706:
1705:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1668:
1662:
1604:
1601:
1598:
1595:
1592:
1589:
1570:
1565:
1525:
1518:
1500:
1493:
1488:
898:
891:
886:
776:
769:
764:
755:fringe theories
687:
680:
675:
554:
438:
415:
410:
355:
352:
349:
346:
307:
300:
295:
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1868:
1866:
1857:
1856:
1840:
1839:
1819:
1811:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1770:
1767:
1759:
1758:
1750:
1749:
1718:
1717:
1694:
1655:
1638:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1557:
1556:
1534:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1498:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
970:- yes, exactly
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
896:
881:
877:
873:
869:
851:
806:
795:
774:
758:
751:
747:
728:
717:
710:
685:
670:
662:
658:
651:
650:
627:
618:
617:
611:
603:
594:
593:
577:
568:
567:
561:
530:
512:
494:
472:
446:
425:
424:
423:
422:
402:
401:
379:
362:
342:Andrew Lenahan
335:
314:
305:
279:
253:
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1867:
1855:
1853:
1848:
1842:
1841:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1825:
1820:
1817:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1793:
1788:
1784:
1778:
1774:
1771:
1768:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1755:
1752:
1751:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1719:
1716:
1713:
1702:
1698:
1695:
1692:
1689:
1678:
1674:
1667:
1660:
1656:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1639:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1628:Peterkingiron
1625:
1621:
1617:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1608:
1607:
1584:
1576:
1573:
1568:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1533:
1530:
1528:
1523:
1521:
1515:
1512:
1511:
1506:
1501:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1451:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1406:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1315:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1225:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1135:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1090:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1018:
999:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
977:
973:
954:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
932:
928:
909:
906:
905:
904:
899:
894:
890:
889:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
866:
865:
861:
857:
852:
848:
843:
841:
837:
833:
827:
825:
821:
820:Verifiability
817:
813:
807:
805:
800:
796:
793:
789:
784:
783:
782:
777:
772:
768:
767:
759:
756:
752:
748:
744:
743:
742:
738:
734:
729:
726:
722:
718:
715:
711:
708:
704:
700:
695:
694:
693:
688:
683:
679:
678:
671:
668:
663:
659:
655:
654:
653:
652:
649:
645:
641:
637:
632:
628:
626:
625:
620:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
602:
601:
596:
595:
592:
587:
582:
578:
576:
575:
570:
569:
565:
562:
560:
557:
551:
547:
542:
538:
537:featured list
534:
531:
529:
525:
521:
516:
513:
511:
507:
503:
498:
495:
493:
489:
485:
484:Gun Powder Ma
480:
476:
473:
470:
466:
462:
455:
451:
447:
445:
442:
441:
434:
430:
427:
426:
421:
418:
413:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
397:
392:
387:
383:
380:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
361:
358:
343:
339:
336:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
313:
308:
303:
299:
298:
291:
287:
283:
280:
277:
273:
269:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1846:
1843:
1822:
1815:
1790:
1786:
1753:
1696:
1658:
1640:
1623:
1615:
1588:
1582:
1581:
1540:
1536:
1526:
1519:
1514:Speedy Keep.
1513:
1486:
1466:
1449:
1421:
1404:
1376:
1360:supposition,
1358:
1330:
1313:
1285:
1268:
1240:
1223:
1195:
1178:
1150:
1133:
1105:
1087:
1059:
1042:
1014:
997:
969:
952:
924:
907:
884:
846:
839:
835:
831:
829:
823:
809:
803:
798:
790:. Moreover,
762:
673:
634:
621:
614:
597:
589:
580:
571:
563:
532:
514:
502:Teeninvestor
496:
474:
449:
436:
428:
390:
385:
381:
364:
345:
337:
316:
293:
281:
256:
244:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1829:Rubikonchik
1739:Rubikonchik
1731:WP:COATRACK
1489:bahamut0013
1469:Rubikonchik
1424:Rubikonchik
1379:Rubikonchik
1333:Rubikonchik
1288:Rubikonchik
1243:Rubikonchik
1198:Rubikonchik
1153:Rubikonchik
1108:Rubikonchik
1062:Rubikonchik
1017:Rubikonchik
972:Rubikonchik
927:Rubikonchik
887:bahamut0013
856:Rubikonchik
802:following:
765:bahamut0013
750:casualties.
733:Rubikonchik
714:WP:COATRACK
676:bahamut0013
640:Rubikonchik
607:WP:COATRACK
600:WP:COATRACK
555:Sander Säde
546:WP:COATRACK
296:bahamut0013
230:Rubikonchik
222:WP:COATRACK
210:Rubikonchik
198:Rubikonchik
155:free images
1787:nomination
719:Regarding
605:As far as
224:and rule:
50:Mike Cline
1735:WP:FRINGE
850:criteria.
731:exactly?.
725:WP:FRINGE
721:WP:FRINGE
631:WP:FRINGE
624:WP:FRINGE
579:The list
550:WP:FRINGE
461:• Gene93k
439:WackyWace
396:Mandsford
382:Weak keep
325:Jaan Pärn
226:WP:FRINGE
386:sortable
116:View log
1671:by the
1645:Jenks24
1616:Comment
1089:flawed.
667:article
369:Jenks24
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
1723:WP:SYN
1707:Snotty
1701:WP:SYN
1683:Snotty
1666:Rescue
1546:Nick-D
847:per se
818:, and
699:WP:SYN
586:WP:SYN
581:per se
574:WP:SYN
541:WP:SYN
520:Edison
475:Delete
321:wp:syn
268:Nick-D
218:WP:SYN
206:WP:SYN
194:WP:SYN
133:Google
93:delete
1797:talk
1727:WP:OR
1620:WP:OR
1605:Focus
1527:Hydro
1499:deeds
897:deeds
775:deeds
703:WP:OR
686:deeds
306:deeds
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
1833:talk
1757:odd:
1754:Keep
1743:talk
1733:and
1710:Wong
1697:Keep
1686:Wong
1679:).
1659:Note
1649:talk
1641:Keep
1632:talk
1583:Keep
1550:talk
1537:Keep
1520:Code
1473:talk
1428:talk
1383:talk
1337:talk
1292:talk
1247:talk
1202:talk
1157:talk
1112:talk
1066:talk
1021:talk
976:talk
931:talk
860:talk
737:talk
644:talk
548:and
533:Keep
524:talk
515:Keep
506:talk
488:talk
465:talk
450:Note
429:Keep
373:talk
365:Keep
338:Keep
329:talk
317:Keep
282:Keep
272:talk
257:Note
245:Note
234:talk
214:talk
202:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:Keep
1792:DGG
1703:.
1566:Joe
1541:lot
459:--
411:Joe
391:not
353:bli
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
1835:)
1799:)
1745:)
1729:,
1669:}}
1663:{{
1651:)
1634:)
1624:by
1552:)
1475:)
1430:)
1385:)
1339:)
1294:)
1249:)
1204:)
1159:)
1114:)
1068:)
1023:)
978:)
933:)
862:)
814:,
739:)
646:)
633:-
622:3
598:2
526:)
508:)
490:)
467:)
456:.
375:)
356:nd
350:ar
347:St
344:-
331:)
292:.
274:)
263:.
251:.
236:)
196:.
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
1831:(
1818:.
1795:(
1741:(
1737:?
1647:(
1630:(
1602:m
1599:a
1596:e
1593:r
1590:D
1571:N
1548:(
1471:(
1426:(
1381:(
1335:(
1290:(
1245:(
1200:(
1155:(
1110:(
1064:(
1019:(
974:(
929:(
858:(
842:.
826:.
735:(
709:.
642:(
572:1
566:.
522:(
504:(
486:(
463:(
416:N
371:(
327:(
270:(
266:—
232:(
212:(
200:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.