590:
are still living. The article made various assertions of family relationships among
American football players (fathers, sons, brothers, twins, uncles, nephews, cousins, etc.), but without a single source to substantiate any of those relationships. BLPs created after March 18, 2010 are now subject to deletion by the new BLPPROD procedure applicable to sourceless BLP articles. No sources in a BLP? It can no be prodded and deleted after 10 days (if it was created after March 18, 2010). Other sourceless BLPs are subject deletion by AfD; WP:BLP expressly states that sourceless BLP articles that are not subject to BLPROD are subject to AfD. My personal take on that is a list that includes multiple BLPs requires at least one source for every living person included.
1035:. Sorry, Doncram, but I disagree, and my disagreement is based on the applicable AfD policies and guidelines. This AfD was opened only two days ago on October 17, 2012. Currently, there are a total of three "keep" !votes, and one "delete" !vote—not exactly an overwhelming majority after 48 hours of discussion. Numerous problems regarding notability, original research, verifiability, reliable sources, and, yes, the application of the sourcing rules to BLP articles, have been raised and remain to be addressed in the article (which is now in the process of being rewritten). Contrary to various mistaken assertions in the comments above, let's review the applicable guidelines and policies regarding early closure.
606:, because WP:RS makes absolutely no mention of broadcast news, TV episodes, films, or other A/V recordings. Not one. You have cited a section for the proper citation format for such recordings. The existence of a proper citation format for films, TV episodes, and video recordings does not necessarily imply that they are treated as reliable sources under WP:RS. Furthermore, the point is moot in the present context. Neither you nor anyone else has produced an ESPN news broadcast episode, or any similar TV source, that would satisfy the citation format you referred to. Until someone does, we are arguing about an interesting hypothetical with no direct bearing on the present AfD.
921:- I do have two major problems with it. The first is that it is incredibly unreadable. For example, with the entry on the Garretts, you really have to hunt to find the second name in the list because there are so many teams. A table might work better, but as it is, it's just a sprawling assortment of data. My second major problem is the lack of citations. I'm sure that many or even most of the relationships are cited in the articles about the people themselves, but there are some redlinked people who are just plain non-notable. I would bet that just about every NFL player has a relative somewhere along the line who played football ... so this is potentially a very big list. --
599:
to being prodded and deleted; and sourceless BLPs that were created before March 18, 2010 are subject to AfD scrutiny. This is not a matter of assuming the good faith or bad faith of my fellow editors; it is a matter of producing reliable sources for BLP articles. And, Paul, you need to get used to it. Every time
Knowledge has another BLP controversy, the BLP rules are going to get tightened. Knowledge is not going to retreat to the days of accepting unverified and sourceless BLPs. In case you missed my point (or chose to ignore it again), the "good faith" of the editors who create a BLP article is irrelevant in this context.
1113:
This is not a biography article, it is a list, there is NO WAY this is going to be deleted, it has already be considered in 1st nomination. It is a waste of time for AFD to be used to further a complaint campaign about the quality of a valid-article. I think it is wrong to use AFD to attempt to force something that is not appropriate for AFD. I accept however, that given your disagreement, that the 7 day AFD clock will run. I am not motivated to help develop the article by your/others attempt to force development inappropriately. Let's stop any back and forth, though; I won't respond any further. --
763:
those items to the Talk page for further discussion, so that the information is not lost from view by editors, who may well come up with adequate sourcing for removed items. This AFD forum is not appropriate for your complaints. You don't get to punish transgressions by having the topic deleted. It has already been decided by consensus that the topic is notable / valid for an article. You seem to have valid concerns, but AFD is not the way to go. By the way, I am cooperating somewhat with a parallel effort by editor
Mootros, who disputes the sourcing/inclusion of many items within
1042:, "In general, deletion discussions should remain open for at least seven days to allow interested editors ample time to participate. However, under certain circumstances, discussions may be closed prior to the seven-day timeframe. Closers should apply good judgment before speedily closing a discussion, since often it is best to allow the discussion to continue for the full seven days." There is no reason to close this AfD early; discussion is still under way and the article is now being rewritten to address the several valid concerns raised in the discussion above.
421:
sourceless articles, and hold them to our basic project standards. Come on, Paul. You know better than this—you would never personally produce an unsourced article like this and expect it to survive AfD. It's ridiculous. If this article survives this AfD "as is," I am inclined to simply delete every unsourced statement about a living person per WP:BLP. If you or any other credible editor wants to work on it, I would be willing to give them a reasonable time to cure the BLP problems—
635:
together on other WP:CFB concerns, and I can say with complete sincerity that I only want your honest, but informed opinion in these discussions. None of us are, or realistically can be, experts on every element of the applicable
Knowledge policy and guidelines. Everyone brings something to the table in the way of knowledge, and you bring a wealth of knowledge and informed opinions to the table. I apologize if I "badgered" you, and I respectfully ask that you rejoin the discussion.
483:
relationships asserted in this article as challenged by me. In the absence of a reliable source for most of the several hundred family relationships asserted in this article, there is no basis for you or any other participant in this discussion to assert any such family relationship. I'll spot you Lou and Skip Holtz, as well as Archie, Peyton and Eli
Manning. Do you have sources for the rest? If so, please add them to the article.
495:
you would provide it. If you're correct, I will have just learned something new about
Knowledge today. If you're asserting that a published written transcript of ESPN sports news might be considered a reliable source, that's an entirely different kettle of fish, and would be more consistent with my current understanding of WP:RS. Of course, you would need to produce that written transcript.
234:
list is original research. Even if the list had a footnote for every individual fact, the composite would be lacking notability under the guidelines. The topic lacks notability. Notability cannot be inherited from the individual players. Lists are not exempt from article requirements. This is not a navigation list. This is essentially a trivia list, without notability. To paraphrase
1089:"When an article is nominated for deletion, the Knowledge community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Knowledge. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly."
898:
may be appropriately raised at AfD, too. Furthermore, WP:AfD expressly states that notability, original research and verifiability are valid grounds for deletion. This is not my tilting at windmills to make a point. Bejnar was perfectly correct in bringing this second AfD when the article's notability is in doubt and these other problems have not been addressed.
545:
does not mention TV news, only "film, TV and video recordings"). A video recording is simply the audio-visual version of a written transcript. However, you cannot rely on Paul's memory of unidentified ESPN programs which you have watched over the years; Paul's memory of various unidentified ESPN programs is not a reliable source by any stretch of the policy cited.
706:. Rather than deleting these lists, some thought should be given to determining how to improve them, perhaps taking the best elements from each to develop a good template for a sport-by-sport family lists. Or perhaps limiting the lists to siblings and direct lineage (children, parents, grandparents) or participants in the sport at the highest level. For example,
714:'s another well-sourced list of 335 sets of brothers who played in the NFL"..... and..."As for the notability of the topic, I recall seeing many articles over the years discussing the prevalence of family relations at the top levels of athletics. While I don't have time right now to search for them, here's one such article from
445:
material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" -- note that it does not state that all material must be sourced. Is it a good idea to source it? Sure. Do I want to have it done? Yes. Would it make the article better? Of course. But only
864:
I do get the point, yes. But a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step, as someone once said. IN the same way, I take it that you get the point: AfD is not for articles which are notable but within which there is nothing but unreferenced stuff. Although that said, AfD is a great way of
598:
anything; undeniably this list was an unverified compilation of data unsupported by reliable sources. This list, as it existed at the start of this AfD, included 150+ BLPs for which there was not a single source for any one of them or the article as a whole. New BLPs without sources are now subject
548:
If demanding that we source BLPs is now considered "disruptive," my friend, Knowledge has far bigger problems than this little old list article. It's not a matter of assuming the good faith of my fellow editors; it's a matter of providing an actual reliable source to support the facts asserted. For
420:
Bottom line: we cannot continue to accept these editor-compiled list articles when there is no sourced evidence for the subject's notability, nor can we accept any article about living persons that is completely lacking in footnoted sources. Let's stop making excuses for the editors who create these
1112:
We're just repeating ourselves. I disagree, AFD is inappropriate: any BLP concerns can be resolved, have been resolved i think, by removing the vast part of the article already. The guideline ""Articles that breach
Knowledge's policy on biographies of living persons" is about biography articles.
1096:
Frankly, rather than an early close, I would recommend that the article be relisted to give Giant
Snowman, who has volunteered to undertake a major rewrite and restructuring of the article, the time to do so. I have volunteered to help him do so to the extent my available time permits. It would be
494:
sources"; it makes no mention of any verbal sources, live or recorded, anywhere within the four corners of the policy. The word "published" generally implies something in writing. If you have authority for your proposition that television news is a reliable source per WP:RS, I would be grateful if
444:
states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the
1158:
Notability of the topic is shown by the sources mentioning family ties, although more would be better; Notability of the people is shown by blue links & sources on their pages. Sources actually showing the relationship would be nice, but I doubt are necessary, as they shouldn't be contentious,
897:
policy, any BLP article created after March 18, 2010 may be prodded if it completely lacks sources and deleted after 10 days. Any article that can be prodded may also be more fully discussed at AfD. While this article was created in 2008, the new BLPPROD policy would seem to imply that BLP issues
849:
Keep going, Tagishsimon, and add at least one source/reference for every living person in the list. Then there will probably be very little to argue about. (Sorry about being facetious. But you get the point. Adding one source that does not include every living person on the list does not solve
634:
No, Paul, my intent is not to badger you out of the discussion. You're a big boy, and I know that you can deal with a robust discussion of policy. I can and will object when I believe my own arguments are being misconstrued. That having been said, I respect your article work, we have worked well
589:
Paul, cut the bullshit. Please. As the article existed at the inception of this AfD, it included precisely ZERO references of any kind. None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. By my rough count, the article, as it existed at the start of the AfD, included over 250 individual persons, over 60 percent of whom
363:
How is this original research as a whole? For example, there's tons of coverage in the media about Archie, Peyton, and Eli
Manning... or the Bowden family... or Lou and Skip Holtz... or Bo and Carl Pelini... I agree that the article needs work, and there may be some OR in the article for specific
233:
secondary works. There is a reason why the article remains unsourced, it is inherent in the lack of connectivity between the pieces of information. At best one could find references that say the X is the son of Y, but nothing to relate the package of information together. As such, compiling this
762:
Dirtlawyer1, I will assume you are correct that there are sourcing problems. This is not appropriate for AFD. I suggest you could proceed by giving notice at the Talk page that you believe there are sourcing problems, and that you could proceed to remove items from the page. I suggest you copy
544:
Paul, the section you cited is titled "Film, TV, or video recordings." Note the word "recordings." If you have a recording of a particular episode of an ESPN news program and can cite the name of the producer, the date and time of production, you may have a source (even though the section cited
404:
Paul, there are exactly ZERO sources for this article. That presents a serious BLP violation. As the article presently stands, anyone could delete virtually 100% of the content because there are no sources in an article about living people. That means you have to show a source for every family
1010:
AFD is decided, pretty much all parties agree the topic was and is valid; this should be closed. IMO, assertions that the AFD was "justified" are simply wrong; AFD is not the forum for complaining about individual BLP concerns within an article. Obviously the topic is valid and appropriately
1092:
Doncram, I'm sorry to be the skunk at the party, but AfD is appropriate not only for notability problems, but also those related to BLP violations, original research, and anything else "that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace." As I have attempted to impart in my
408:
Notability must apply to the list topic as a whole, not individual family clusters. Individual notability, or individual family notability, does not impart notability to the group or list. Multiple independent, reliable sources must be included that discuss the topic of football families; not
451:
material that is unsourced should be deleted. I don't think anyone (other than you maybe) would argue that the
Manning family is not related or that the Holtz family is not related. How do I know this? I've watched ESPN once or twice in the last decade. Yes, broadcast television news shows
1045:
It has also been asserted above that once the article subject's notability is established, AfD is not the appropriate forum to address the article's other problems raised above, and in particular, that AfD is not the appropriate forum to address BLP concerns. That is simply incorrect. Per
747:
Doncram, notability is only one problem of several. This list is one giant BLP violation. In the absence of footnoted sources, every statement about a living person is subject to deletion. It's been 20 months since the last AfD. When are we going to enforce our core Knowledge policies?
593:
Contrary to your assertion, I have not assumed that the entire article is a "bad-faith compilation of incorrect data." Again, please quit putting words in my mouth and please stop mischaracterizing my arguments. At some point it feels like a political campaign. Frankly, I don't need to
482:
Your reading of WP:BLP put the emphasis on the words "contentious material," even helpfully providing a link to the Wiktionary definition of "contentious." My reading of WP:BLP puts the emphasis on "any material challenged or likely to be challenged." Please consider the numerous family
549:
every good-faith editor, there is at least one bad-faith vandal, and good-faith editors make mistakes and include inaccurate/untrue/false information in at l;east one of Knowledge's four million articles every minute of every hour of every day. It's not a matter of good faith per
525:
You are challenging everything on the article except the Holtz's and the Mannings? I guess you can, but that seems disruptive to me. Unless there's a reason, I like to assume good faith in my fellow editors. But if you insist, please feel free to discus that at the article's
405:
cluster where one of the family members is still living. Those are the basic BLP rules; no source for a statement about a living person, then it's subject to immediate deletion. There are dozens, if not hundreds of living persons included on this list. Show me the sources.
89:
674:. Per comments of editor Cbl62 in the last AFD on this, which I quote: "The article needs sourcing and could use some clearer criteria, but such familial lists strike me as being notable, verifiable, and encyclopedic. There are similar lists for many other sports. See
456:
after an AFD that passes keep as you seem to assert you want to do, that would probably be considered a bad faith edit and could lead to... well... bad stuff. So I hope you don't take that route. As to your other arguments, I'm going to wait for you to go back and read
1134:
Yes, we are repeating ourselves to a large degree, Doncram. Having made your opinion known about the "appropriateness" of this AfD, I respect your desire to disengage. Having said that, however, I cannot let your misreading of WP:BLP immediately above go uncorrected.
574:
Demanding reliable sources is not disruptive. Unnecessarily demanding sources upon threat of deletion of content could be though. You're really going out on a limb here to claim that the whole page was a bad-faith compilation of incorrect data. That seems to be your
416:
Original research? In the absence of an independent reliable source, telling me that Skip Holtz is the son of Lou Holtz is OR. How do you know that? No Knowledge editor's personal knowledge can serve as a "source." Show me something in writing. Again, show me the
1093:
comments above, I am not crusading for the deletion of this article. I am advocating that the article be fixed and these perfectly valid concerns be addressed and the article be kept, but if those concerns are not addressed, I see no reason why it should be kept.
892:
Third, this article has had a multiplicity of unresolved notability, original research, BLP, reliable source and verifiability issues since its creation, and AfD is an entirely appropriate forum to address them, including the BLP concerns. In fact, under the new
409:
individual football families, but multiple football families. I assume these sources can be found, but it may take some work. In the absence of such sources, this list is not entitled to any presumption of notability under any SNG I'm aware of. It must satisfy
521:
I was wrong and mis-read what you wrote, your threat was to start deleting stuff after the AFD was cleared and not during. That could also be considered disruptive, but I'll strike and modify my comments to more accurately reflect what you did
190:
571:"Film, TV, or video recordings" is different from "Film recordings, TV recordings, or video recordings" Broadcast journalism has long been considered reliable sources (although present-day political activists would definitely argue that).
301:
226:
84:
1083:) and the copyright policy (Knowledge:Copyrights). Together, these policies govern the admissibility of text in the main body of the encyclopedia, and only text conforming to all four policies is allowed in the main namespace.
884:
Second, there was a previous AfD 20 month ago in which a total of three editors affirmatively voted to "keep," and the nominator was an implied "delete." Several other editors expressed various concerns. As I'm sure you know,
224:
This is an unreferenced list about people who have more than one person in their family connected to football. Aside from that, there is no organizing principle. This list was previously discussed at Afd a year and a half ago
1086:"This guide deals with the process of addressing articles that contravene Knowledge:Verifiability and Knowledge:No original research, which are often listed or 'nominated' on Knowledge:Articles for deletion. . . .
880:
First, I did not initiate this AfD. Editor Bejnar filed this AfD. I did not know the article existed until it popped on the American football-related list of AfD articles. I have simply commented on the obvious
304:
and nothing has happened to make it "un-notable" (which is not temporary anyway). I agree that sources could be added and the list could be cleaned up significantly, but those are editing issues and not deletion
865:
bringing such problems to a head, and so though I think this should not ave been brought to AfD, I very much support you having brought it to AfD since that action looks as if it is leading to a solution. --
389:
how do you get "5 or 6 editors expressed a split opinion" in the previous AFD? I count 3 keeps, 1 delete changed to neutral (which was me), 1 editor made a comment, and 1 more suggested a "severe re-write"
116:
111:
1139:
specifically states that it applies to all articles, not just those that are primarily biographical in nature: "This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and
120:
184:
103:
764:
150:
1097:
a gesture of collegiality and evidence of commitment to upholding the applicable Knowledge policies if the other the "keep" !voters would also volunteer to help with that rewrite effort.
255:
687:
827:
938:- if you'll allow me the time, I'll try and overhaul it this weekend. Add sources, convert to table form, add some criteria (i.e. had to play as a pro) - what do people think?
143:
1191:
1176:
1129:
1106:
1027:
997:
973:
959:
945:
930:
907:
872:
859:
839:
818:
797:
783:
757:
742:
695:
644:
629:
615:
584:
566:
539:
527:
504:
470:
434:
399:
381:
355:
314:
290:
267:
247:
107:
61:
322:. Wow. Notwithstanding the previous AfD in which 5 or 6 editors expressed a split opinion, it would appear that this article has serious original research problems per
1184:- as I hope my edits have shown, the list has definite potential, and it's not a trivial topic - I feel it needs improving, not deleting. Help always appreciated...!
475:
Okay, Paul, I would be grateful if you would not put words in my mouth. At no point have I suggested that I would start deleting unsourced sections of this article
479:
this AfD. Please do not suggest otherwise. It's not what I said, and I would be grateful if you would strike through your comment above that suggests otherwise.
683:
346:. If we are going to keep this article, someone better get busy addressing these issues. If not, my ultimate vote in this AfD will be a strong thumb's down.
99:
74:
988:
Please, in the article, provide sources that relate to the notability of the topic and not just a laundry list of X is the son of Y type citations. Thanks. --
205:
172:
281:
which is not so much about the topic, as it is a father's day lead-in to discuss three rookies. However it does mention the topic in passing. --
166:
788:
Doncram, please see my comments to Tagishsimon below regarding whether AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss this article's various issues.
452:
generally count as reliable sources so we can dig that up and post it as a source. A friendly word of caution: if you blank this article now
365:
620:
If your intent is to badger me out of the discussion, you've succeeded. I leave any interpretation of this to whoever closes the article.--
699:
162:
675:
369:
1011:
sourced material is available for the article. It's a waste of time for more people to consider this. Someone please close this. --
212:
1071:"All text created in the Knowledge main namespace is subject to several important rules, including three cardinal content policies (
276:
235:
1072:
17:
889:, and 20 months is a long time in Knowledge. We are not bound by the previous AfD; this AfD will determine present consensus.
811:- I concur with Doncram's advice, even though I came to this AfD with delete in mind. I've now added the first reference ;) --
1080:
178:
1124:
1022:
778:
737:
679:
1054:"Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)";
486:
ESPN television sports news is a "reliable source?" That's news to me (if you'll pardon the pun). I have just re-read
1065:
66:
719:
1068:
specifically mentions "original research" as a basis for AfD (again, the text is quoted from the linked original):
1039:
1210:
1047:
40:
1050:, here are several deletion criteria relevant to this particular AfD (text is quoted from the linked original):
511:
1076:
1060:"Any other use of the article . . . that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace."
691:
425:
we have properly established the notability of the article's subject (i.e. "American football families").
1188:
970:
942:
703:
625:
580:
535:
466:
395:
377:
310:
707:
1206:
1102:
955:
903:
869:
855:
815:
793:
753:
640:
611:
562:
500:
430:
351:
36:
767:, where I appreciate he is merely removing the items, after long notice, to the Talk page. Cheers, --
1145:
711:
198:
723:
1185:
1119:
1017:
967:
939:
894:
835:
773:
732:
621:
576:
531:
462:
391:
373:
306:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1205:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1098:
993:
951:
899:
866:
851:
812:
789:
749:
636:
607:
558:
496:
426:
347:
286:
263:
243:
327:
1160:
1136:
886:
550:
458:
440:
410:
335:
331:
57:
90:
Articles for deletion/List of family relations in American football (2nd nomination)
1114:
1012:
831:
768:
727:
710:'s a well-sourced list of 187 sets of fathers and sons who played in the NFL. And
603:
487:
343:
323:
229:. This topic has not been the subject, so far as I have been able to discern, of
137:
726:
from ESPN.com." (quoted from Cbl62's comment in last AFD about this article). --
989:
926:
554:
339:
282:
259:
239:
602:
As for broadcast news shows being reliable sources, that remains unclear under
364:
links to family members, but the whole list? Maybe it should be modeled after
515:
1057:"Articles that breach Knowledge's policy on biographies of living persons";
53:
922:
85:
Articles for deletion/List of family relations in American football
1199:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
877:
Tahishsimon, a couple of clarifications are required . . .
238:, it is nonnotable, nonencyclopedic, and nonfunctional. --
447:
950:
Giant Snowman, I think that is exactly what is needed.
964:
688:
List of second-generation Major League Baseball players
133:
129:
125:
553:; it's a matter of verifiable accuracy of content per
512:
Knowledge:Citing sources#Film, TV, or video recordings
277:"Pro Football:Notebook; Dad-Son Duos Run Up the Score"
256:
list of American football-related deletion discussions
197:
1142:
whether it is in a biography or in some other article
828:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
696:List of family relations in professional wrestling
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1213:). No further edits should be made to this page.
514:. Also, you might want to read the article on
1048:Knowledge:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion
684:List of association football families of note
211:
100:List of family relations in American football
75:List of family relations in American football
8:
826:Note: This debate has been included in the
254:Note: This debate has been included in the
1159:for most players with the same last name.
334:, and fundamental living person issues per
825:
490:, and it specifically mentions "reliable,
253:
413:: again, that means show me the sources.
82:
366:List of association football families
7:
1033:Comment: Reject call for early close
850:this article's sourcing problems.)
700:List of professional sports families
676:List of family relations in the NHL
370:List of family relations in the NHL
81:
275:Smith, Timothy W. (18 June 1995).
24:
461:first and then tackle the rest.--
236:Knowledge:WikiProject Laundromat
1073:Knowledge:Neutral point of view
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1081:Knowledge:No original research
1:
720:Dad-Son Duos Run Up the Score
680:List of rugby league families
518:--it's not all "print media".
1192:14:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
1177:05:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
1130:22:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
1107:19:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
1028:18:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
998:07:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
974:09:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
960:08:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
946:07:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
931:04:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
908:11:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
873:10:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
860:03:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
840:02:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
819:02:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
798:11:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
784:23:28, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
758:22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
743:22:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
645:19:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
630:17:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
616:16:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
585:15:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
567:03:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
540:03:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
505:02:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
471:01:09, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
435:22:48, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
400:22:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
382:22:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
356:19:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
315:19:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
291:19:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
268:18:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
248:18:42, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
62:20:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
1066:Knowledge:Guide to deletion
1230:
1040:Knowledge:Deletion process
724:Greatest father-son combos
300:This was clearly notable
1202:Please do not modify it.
326:, notability issues per
32:Please do not modify it.
1077:Knowledge:Verifiability
1008:Comment: Call for close
692:List of boxing families
704:List of chess families
80:AfDs for this article:
279:. The New York Times.
887:consensus can change
765:another list article
716:The New York Times
842:
270:
70:
67:non-admin closure
1221:
1204:
1174:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1144:." (Please see
1127:
1122:
1117:
1025:
1020:
1015:
781:
776:
771:
740:
735:
730:
280:
216:
215:
201:
153:
141:
123:
64:
48:The result was
34:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1211:deletion review
1200:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1023:
1018:
1013:
965:it has begun...
779:
774:
769:
738:
733:
728:
274:
158:
149:
114:
98:
95:
78:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1227:
1225:
1216:
1215:
1195:
1194:
1179:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
933:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
890:
882:
878:
844:
843:
822:
821:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
600:
591:
572:
546:
523:
519:
484:
480:
418:
414:
406:
384:
317:
294:
293:
271:
219:
218:
155:
94:
93:
92:
87:
79:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1226:
1214:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1197:
1196:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1180:
1178:
1175:
1157:
1154:
1153:
1147:
1146:WP:BLPSOURCES
1143:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1094:
1090:
1087:
1084:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1067:
1064:Furthermore,
1059:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1049:
1043:
1041:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1021:
1016:
1009:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
975:
972:
969:
966:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:
947:
944:
941:
937:
934:
932:
928:
924:
920:
917:
909:
905:
901:
896:
891:
888:
883:
879:
876:
875:
874:
871:
868:
863:
862:
861:
857:
853:
848:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
824:
823:
820:
817:
814:
810:
807:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:
785:
782:
777:
772:
766:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
746:
745:
744:
741:
736:
731:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
646:
642:
638:
633:
632:
631:
627:
623:
622:Paul McDonald
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
592:
588:
587:
586:
582:
578:
577:Paul McDonald
573:
570:
569:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
547:
543:
542:
541:
537:
533:
532:Paul McDonald
529:
524:
520:
517:
513:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
502:
498:
493:
489:
485:
481:
478:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
463:Paul McDonald
460:
455:
450:
449:
443:
442:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
415:
412:
407:
403:
402:
401:
397:
393:
392:Paul McDonald
388:
385:
383:
379:
375:
374:Paul McDonald
371:
367:
362:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
318:
316:
312:
308:
307:Paul McDonald
303:
299:
296:
295:
292:
288:
284:
278:
272:
269:
265:
261:
257:
252:
251:
250:
249:
245:
241:
237:
232:
228:
223:
214:
210:
207:
204:
200:
196:
192:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
164:
161:
160:Find sources:
156:
152:
148:
145:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
118:
113:
109:
105:
101:
97:
96:
91:
88:
86:
83:
76:
73:
71:
68:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1201:
1198:
1181:
1155:
1141:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1070:
1063:
1044:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1007:
1006:
935:
918:
808:
715:
671:
595:
575:assertion.--
491:
476:
453:
446:
439:
422:
386:
360:
319:
297:
230:
221:
220:
208:
202:
194:
187:
181:
175:
169:
159:
146:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1099:Dirtlawyer1
952:Dirtlawyer1
900:Dirtlawyer1
867:Tagishsimon
852:Dirtlawyer1
813:Tagishsimon
790:Dirtlawyer1
750:Dirtlawyer1
722:. See also
702:, and even
637:Dirtlawyer1
608:Dirtlawyer1
559:Dirtlawyer1
497:Dirtlawyer1
448:contentious
427:Dirtlawyer1
348:Dirtlawyer1
185:free images
919:Don't care
895:WP:BLPPROD
516:Publishing
273:I do note
1207:talk page
832:• Gene93k
528:talk page
492:published
390:... ???--
368:or maybe
305:issues.--
302:last time
37:talk page
1209:or in a
417:sources.
361:Question
328:WP:NLIST
144:View log
39:or in a
1189:Snowman
971:Snowman
943:Snowman
936:Comment
881:issues.
320:Comment
191:WPÂ refs
179:scholar
117:protect
112:history
1137:WP:BLP
1079:, and
990:Bejnar
870:(talk)
816:(talk)
596:assume
551:WP:AGF
522:write.
477:during
459:WP:BLP
454:during
441:WP:BLP
411:WP:GNG
372:... --
336:WP:BLP
332:WP:GNG
283:Bejnar
260:Bejnar
240:Bejnar
222:Delete
163:Google
121:delete
1186:Giant
968:Giant
940:Giant
604:WP:RS
488:WP:RS
423:after
344:WP:RS
324:WP:OR
206:JSTOR
167:books
151:Stats
138:views
130:watch
126:links
16:<
1182:Keep
1156:Keep
1103:talk
1038:Per
994:talk
956:talk
927:talk
904:talk
856:talk
836:talk
809:Keep
794:talk
754:talk
712:here
708:here
672:Keep
641:talk
626:talk
612:talk
581:talk
563:talk
555:WP:V
536:talk
501:talk
467:talk
431:talk
396:talk
387:Also
378:talk
352:talk
342:and
340:WP:V
330:and
311:talk
298:Keep
287:talk
264:talk
258:. --
244:talk
227:here
199:FENS
173:news
134:logs
108:talk
104:edit
58:talk
52:. --
50:keep
1172:ve
1166:e S
1121:ncr
1019:ncr
775:ncr
734:ncr
557:.
530:.--
231:any
213:TWL
142:– (
54:BDD
1169:te
1163:Th
1148:.)
1126:am
1116:do
1105:)
1075:,
1024:am
1014:do
996:)
958:)
929:)
906:)
858:)
838:)
830:.
796:)
780:am
770:do
756:)
739:am
729:do
718::
698:,
694:,
690:,
686:,
682:,
678:,
643:)
628:)
614:)
583:)
565:)
538:)
503:)
469:)
433:)
398:)
380:)
354:)
338:,
313:)
289:)
266:)
246:)
193:)
136:|
132:|
128:|
124:|
119:|
115:|
110:|
106:|
60:)
1101:(
992:(
954:(
925:(
923:B
902:(
854:(
834:(
792:(
752:(
639:(
624:(
610:(
579:(
561:(
534:(
499:(
465:(
429:(
394:(
376:(
350:(
309:(
285:(
262:(
242:(
217:)
209:·
203:·
195:·
188:·
182:·
176:·
170:·
165:(
157:(
154:)
147:·
140:)
102:(
69:)
65:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.