1423:"Everyone" knows no such thing, and there's no implicit vote for a STRONG KEEP simply because they haven't been deleted yet. There's no conspiracy here, no matter how many times you try to make the mud stick by repeated throws. As I've already said, there's no point in nominating it for a fourth time until policy on guest lists is clarified. Discussions like this are a good way to clarify policy.
261:
any purpose if there isn't a section of past and present Guests. When this show aired in 2007 there were not a lot of people that watched this show until now and I had liked to know who was on it when it started. This show offers famous and not famous people which I come to follow now since they appeared on the show. This list does not have the most well-known people.
48:. Though, congratulations for one of the worst AfD "discussions" I have ever seen. "It's very interesting". "It's too detailed". "I like it". "I like lists". "Other TV shows have these lists", followed by a playground argument. Well done, everyone. I was almost tempted to close it as "no consensus" because there's so little policy-based discussion, but hey.
404:: the argument for deletion isn't based on the precedent of other, similar lists existing, but on whether it's ever a good idea to have lists like these. If the consensus is that lists of guests on shows are not suitable articles for inclusion, then the articles you list should also be considered for deletion.
1400:) yet." Yes they have and that is the real reason nobody (including Gurt Posh) dares nominate it again for deletion now. The past four years of acceptance by the larger Wiki community, along with long-ago failed attempts to delete it, is an implicit vote for STRONG KEEP and everyone knows this. The
682:(some of which I retrieved from the nomination for deletion of 'The Daily Show guest lists') be posted on every 'discussion page' of 'TV show guest list' articles, so that less experienced Wiki editors can better defend their particular 'TV guest lists' in the future from more experienced editors who
1547:
contains only one in-line citation on a guest name. That's it! Otherwise, has ZERO refences supporting that long list, unless you include the external links as references, which I believe the editors there are doing. Also, I sampled some of the 16 'The Daily Show (by year)' related articles, and
1595:
I don't know what you're talking about Glen Beck for (just you "slanging" apparently), but your hatred of him and, thereby conservatives, has finally revealed itself - your true motive for wanting to delete a Fox 'TV guest list', but you never get around to The Daily Show guest list for deletion. I
930:
It would not surprise me if many editors have left Wiki in total disgust at the unfairness dealt them, or worse become vandals, which IMHO Wiki has a bad habit of creating in unacceptable numbers. That fact alone should "wake Wiki up" that something isn't working here, but Wiki goes on ignoring the
260:
I don't think any of these should be deleted. They are very interesting on who was on these shows from the start to present. Okay they are long, but when I had put these in the main article they weren't as long as this page. Now that section with the Guest Hosts and
Halftime Reporters will not have
1387:
resulted in 'no consensus' he just didn't want to nominate it again now because consensus is unclear now and "the policy is hazy". But he has no problem now using this same "hazy policy" to delete the "low-hanging fruit" of 'TV guest lists' which also have "unclear consensus" because of their own
990:
There's no evidence of selective deletion or inclusion for that list: it's been deleted and re-created. Editors simply seem not to have come to a consensus about that list yet. I favor its deletion, but recognise that guidelines on inclusion for lists like these are pretty hazy at the moment. So
857:
have resulted in deletion...ever. And we all know they never will because of the "Wiki-wink-of-approval" toward this particular article coupled with the demographic of Wiki editors being heavily skewed toward the political left which always votes to KEEP it, no matter how many other similar 'TV
1301:
here, and was surprised he did. I wanted him to get interested in doing something about the policies I suggested because I know for a fact he is very concerned about editors leavng Wiki and deletions in general. I think my reasons for contacting him are very clear on his talk page. Nothing
1025:. These two go hand-in-hand and are two of the reasons editors are leaving. There, I said it in the spirit of trying to help Wiki. Deal with it, or stay in denial. Wiki's choice. Those two elephants and the damage they create on Wiki are not getting any smaller by denying they exist. --
976:
1208:
though, and that was argued against by RedEyedCajun above. I'm not assuming bad faith on anyone's part, nor am I assuming political bias, and I hope for the same assumptions to be made by any editors tempted to think that this is being nominated for deletion for political reasons.
992:
191:
1016:
issues on Wiki.") It seems I hit upon the two elephant-sized issues which are taboo to speak of on Wiki. I used those very accurate and helpful words/issues exactly as I intended. I know I am 'Tilting at Wiki-windmills' here, but there is much need for
573:
in that it is informative about the types of guests on the show, which aids researchers in quickly determining the demographic of the show's guests and/or the show's network, and also aids quick/efficient navigation to learn more about those guests.
548:
is doing exactly what any
Knowledge list should do: It is documenting information relevant to a notable subject without cluttering that subject's main article, which was my main concern when I saw this list being originally formed in the main
152:
982:
454:
An encyclopedia is for basic information on notable topics. This is way too much detail. Better to have one article on each show with a link to the official site of the show or a fan site where more detailed information can be found.
186:: it's a well-known show, and if a person is important enough to be on the show, they are most likely going to be well known already. There is no reason to devote a list to just those who have appeared on the show. See also
1404:
will remain forever and grow larger (fine with me) while similar 'TV guest lists' often get deleted (Wiki unfair double-standard in action) without any guidance/help (before nomination) to suggest improvements using the
931:
real causes of these problems. This should concern fair-minded editors who really want to stop the increasing number of editors leaving Wiki and stop this double-standard unfairness here, which often masquerades behind
1624:
Busted for what? Being a libertarian. Wow! If that is a bustable offense on Wiki, then Wiki has much bigger problems than I thought. You need a break because your many last comments don't make any sense whatsoever.
1661:
If you want to really clarify policy as you said above, you can do so more effectively by going to the longest unreferenced 'TV guest list' you can find and nominate it for deletion. That list is your favorite, the
1335:
ways here: you say deleted 'TV guest lists' are precedent setting (citing 'Conan O'Brien-2nd nomination', 'Piers Morgan', 'The Howard Stern Show-2nd nomination') when it suites your purpose to convince editors to
187:
1698:
Maybe you should gather your composure and start making sense. I don't want it deleted! I never wanted it deleted! You said you wanted it deleted way back in June, so go nominate it NOW. I'm still waiting!--
474:
I like lists. I often like lists more than articles. They're a quick informative reference. This list and ones like it give readers a quick look as to what to expect along the lines of guests the show
1670:
Go there NOW and nominate it, then we'll all see what happens to your needed clarity.(wink) No secret meeting required at all for all this to happen exactly as I stated above. I'm calling your bluff. --
1455:
Isn't it policy/guideline/courtesy to notify all the builders of lists when their list is up for nomination for deletion? I believe so. So was this done in this case? Talk about dirty pool if not. --
1046:
talking about them, and I clearly said that I favor deletion of the Daily Show lists, so all this talk of "taboos" is complete nonsense. Please stop attempting to infer bias and selectivity on my part.
146:
1223:
I appreciate the intention. Unfortunately OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a euphemism for the more obviously deprecatory (and more frequently used) OTHERCRAPEXISTS version, and I've always objected to its use
970:
86:
81:
90:
947:
that would really help Wiki keep editors by acknowledging real causes of problems on Wiki and showing them there is real concern that fairness be shown across all Wiki articles. Good day. --
73:
1560:. The list builders here are at least trying to have some references, but the editors over at The Daily Show Lists obviously feel confident they have the Wiki-wink-of-approval to not even
1388:
past failed nominations for deletion, like his August 2011 nomination of List of celebrity guests on The Howard Stern Show(2nd nomination) which had a 'no consensus' outcome in 2006. He
991:
before I start off a useless fourth AFD for that list, I'd like to establish some precedent for merging or deleting poorly-sourced lists like this one. As I've said in the nomination at
234:
1610:
Yes, my comparison of your lame rhetoric to that of Glenn Beck (a man that any intelligent conservative will have nothing whatever to do with) reveals my true intentions! Busted!
1491:
No not really, because that guest list of names was assembled for months recently on the 'Red Eye' main page by many different editors which you apparently did not contact at all.
1201:
1276:
Well, since it was just me, doesn't seem like much of a canvas. If this list had had no attempt at sourcing, and no similar lists had survived AfD, I would have opted for
626:) has existed and been maintained as an excellent standard precedent for many years without deletion and has inspired many other 'TV guest lists' (many of which have been
113:
586:
that the nature of the subject/list is not encyclopedic should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies/guidelines against articles on such subjects/lists (from:
898:
as a precedent to create more 'TV guest lists' thinking it is acceptable policy on Wiki to do so, then they become understandably upset and disillusioned with Wiki when
340:
211:
1744:
Repeating accusations many times, with exclamation marks and uppercase, hardly makes them "documented". Come back when you're ready to argue like a grown-up. Good day.
1327:- Gurt Posh, your stated real intention is to change the "hazy policy" by deleting as many 'TV guest lists' as you can NOW to establish a large enough "precedent" (i.e.
964:
It's neither helpful nor accurate to use words like "selective", "wink", "bias" and "double-standards" here. I have no idea what you mean by "Holy Grail" above, either.
315:
1596:
am a independant libertarian, not a conservative. I started editing the main 'Red Eye' article because of Andy Levy and Greg
Gutfeld, both libertarians I respect. --
1130:
A serious attempt has been made here to provide sources, flawed though some of them may be (unofficial YouTube videos are not good sources - find better ones).
670:
In order to improve Wiki and to stop all the unnecessary debates and waste of time which occurs every single time a 'TV guest list' is nominated for deletion,
1235:
attention on the current article's issues, but other applicable consensus matters; heck, that's how most policies, guidelines and essays are arrived at. --
569:). The information is all verifiable with the reliable references listed and the show itself which spawned this list is unquestionably notable. It meets
167:
134:
285:
365:
1380:
355:
1753:
1739:
1725:
1707:
1693:
1679:
1648:
1634:
1619:
1605:
1590:
1573:
1525:
1507:
1486:
1464:
1446:
1432:
1418:
1353:
1311:
1292:
1271:
1244:
1218:
1185:
1056:
1034:
1004:
956:
923:
867:
699:
663:
599:
534:
511:
497:
464:
442:
413:
391:
270:
249:
226:
203:
55:
1552:
has some references (some bad, some good) and is not only depending on the external links for its references, but they probably are depending
345:
128:
814:
805:
800:
795:
790:
785:
776:
771:
766:
761:
756:
747:
742:
737:
732:
727:
330:
1328:
491:
320:
124:
310:
1153:
to spawn such lists to separate articles, as has been done here. Its inclusion criteria are clear, as only notable guests are listed.
1409:
as an excellent precedent setting format. These obvious substantial contradictions are the reasons I questioned his motives here. --
77:
1200:
was not cited before you mentioned it. I don't think it should exist as a redirect, or at the very least shouldn't be linked to on
1160:: it assumes bad faith - that other articles are "crap" if they are kept. This is pointedly counter to a core Knowledge value, of
174:
1281:
Generic complaint about difficulty of being notified of AfDs I'm interested in without having my watchlist overwhelmed by traffic
295:
52:
1022:
940:
615:
1549:
1383:. I would argue for deletion of all of those too." I do not accept his contradictory explanation that because one 2007 AfD on
545:
350:
325:
69:
61:
17:
1340:
here; but then you claim other existing 'TV guest lists' are not precedent setting and can't be used to convince editors to
375:
300:
1716:
because I nominated this guest list (and others), but won't nominate the Daily Show guest lists yet, are quite ridiculous.
1663:
1557:
1544:
1406:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1384:
1376:
711:
673:
672:
a new clear policy needs to be developed to allow 'TV guest lists' which follow the 'excellent standard precedent' set by
635:
623:
558:
290:
278:
Lists like this are common place on wikipedia , I like them and I think that they should be kept. Here's a list of some:
140:
878:
choose the "low-hanging fruit" of 'TV guest lists' for deletion somehow just never get around to nominating the massive
829:
when their TV guest list is nominated for deletion, which happened here also. And what arguments are used to discredit
335:
1133:
Some of the guests have been fairly unique "gets" - the list could be improved by identifying which guests appeared
1205:
907:
834:
607:
401:
1331:) that will then somehow allow you to go delete the long-standing more popular 'TV guest lists'. But you want it
1776:
1730:
My accusations are well documented using your own words, actions (and one particular lack of action). Good day.--
1197:
1157:
1119:
1018:
936:
611:
360:
36:
370:
305:
1775:
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
995:, lists like these are a magnet for adding unreferenced additions, until the list becomes worse than useless.
1548:
the ones I sampled contain ZERO references! I assume none of the 16 do have any references. At least this
1494:
Seriously? "Dirty pool", because I did notify the creators of this article, but not the umpteen editors of
1474:
1164:. Also, it disallows the reference to consensus made elsewhere; this is a flaw. To be sure, we should focus
566:
553:
article. I was very happy when an separate article was created to house it. I was even happier when it was
507:
487:
1735:
1703:
1675:
1630:
1601:
1569:
1521:
1513:
1495:
1470:
1460:
1414:
1349:
1307:
1030:
952:
919:
863:
695:
659:
595:
911:
842:
587:
438:
1258:
that another editor made to your talk page that brought you to this discussion looks an awful lot like
1259:
479:
49:
630:
deleted, IMHO, by editors deliberately ignoring (with a Wiki-wink-of-approval) the existence of the
1749:
1721:
1713:
1689:
1644:
1615:
1586:
1503:
1482:
1442:
1428:
1372:
1267:
1214:
1052:
1000:
977:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of notable guests appearing on The Daily Show (2nd nomination)
903:
838:
647:
530:
460:
409:
266:
245:
222:
199:
183:
160:
1512:
Nice slanging, but you only needed to contact those who actually built the guest list on the main
993:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity guests on The Howard Stern Show (2nd nomination)
1227:. More importantly, that particular ATA, by any name, is typically used to stifle discussion of
562:
503:
483:
192:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Guests on Late Night with Conan O'Brien (2nd nomination)
1149:
On guideline: the list of guests clearly outgrew the show article, and it is quite normal, per
1731:
1699:
1671:
1626:
1597:
1565:
1517:
1456:
1410:
1345:
1303:
1076:
support. In my opinion, this is going to be either a list or a category, and the precedent is
1026:
948:
935:
Wiki-policy which more experienced editors know how to exploit. IMHO, there is much need for
915:
859:
691:
655:
591:
387:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1288:
1240:
1181:
434:
423:
1072:
with a request that the reference quality be improved; with that, this list would have my
525:
has quite a few regular guests, making the guest list especially relevant to the show. --
686:
nominate the easy "low-hanging fruit" while ignoring (with a Wiki-wink-of-approval) the
1745:
1717:
1685:
1640:
1611:
1582:
1499:
1478:
1438:
1424:
1368:
1263:
1210:
1150:
1048:
996:
570:
526:
456:
405:
262:
241:
218:
195:
1578:
They clearly all meet up in secret, to plan out their next unreferenced list article.
1172:
article, but we should not be blinkered to the history of prior and related consensus.
1122:. Dirty pool. Either both examples and counterexamples are allowed in AfD, or neither.
1161:
1344:
here (citing violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]]). You are contradicting yourself. --
521:- As already mentioned, other TV series have articles naming their guests. Further,
1231:
consensus as expressed in precedent. As stated, I agree with the idea of focusing
383:
1111:
valid precedent, since they were based on 'no references' whereas this one is not.
107:
1580:
And if it's not true, then why won't they step forward to deny these allegations?
1284:
1236:
1177:
1579:
1396:. He claims "Editors simply seem not to have come to a consensus about the (
983:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests (2nd nomination)
426:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
638:
and its acceptance as a 'Category' with 16 related articles proves that the
1564:
to find any references at all. Wiki-double-standard I am talking about. --
967:
The main Daily Show guest-list article has been nominated three times:
654:
would have been deleted "a long, long time ago in the Land of Wiki."--
1080:, given other notable sourced talk show guest lists which have been
1202:
WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x?
188:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Piers Morgan
Tonight guests
1302:
nefarious there, only my stated concerns in general about Wiki. --
714:
and it's 16 related articles below), which are all being cited as
1769:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1437:
In theory. This one has turned into a pointless slanging match.
1556:
on the external links, following the standing precedent set by
1127:
Improvement is possible, which would be prevented by deletion:
1477:, since he did a lot of work on referencing. Clean pool here.
874:
In general, I find it very interesting indeed the editors who
1118:, and the simultaneous rejection of valid counterexamples as
979:
in 2006 (consensus merge, and the redirect was later deleted)
971:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of The Daily Show guests
825:
Many editors often point first to the existence of the above
1684:
What's stopping you from going there NOW and nominating it?
582:
has a meaning far greater than a simple list of names. Any
606:
And yes, in the case of 'TV guest lists', the violation of
1469:
Yes, it is courtesy to notify, and I did notify both the
1255:
1204:, precisely for the reasons you suggest. I did mention
882:
for deletion, which if successful would eliminate with
103:
99:
95:
1114:
I disagree with the trotting out of prior AfD results
159:
235:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
433:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
341:List of celebrity guest appearances on Neighbours
311:List of celebrity guests on The Howard Stern Show
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1779:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1012:- (Wiki translation: "Shhh! We don't talk about
646:agree that these types of 'TV guests lists' are
316:List of guests appearing on The Midnight Special
1392:knows consensus is clear there now, but not on
212:list of Television-related deletion discussions
678:If not, then I suggest my arguments above for
1712:Your repeated accusations that I'm acting in
173:
8:
233:Note: This debate has been included in the
210:Note: This debate has been included in the
1329:WP:OtherStuffNoLongerExistsThanksToGurtPosh
296:List of guests on Tom Green's House Tonight
1375:) stated "...it's noted that there is a
902:guest list is deleted using violations of
232:
209:
1550:List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld
546:List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld
351:List of Malcolm in the Middle guest stars
286:List of people who appeared on Soul Train
70:List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld
62:List of guests on Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld
650:. Otherwise, this massive, conspicuous
366:List of guest appearances on The X-Files
1381:Category:Lists of The Daily Show guests
1107:prior AfD 'delete' results, which were
890:for most of the other 'TV guest lists'
376:List of The Ellen DeGeneres Show guests
356:List of guest stars on King of the Hill
301:List of guests on The Paul O'Grady Show
1168:of our attention on issues related to
833:of their arguments to KEEP? Violates
610:be damned in favor of the much needed
1103:I disagree with the nom trotting out
894:So editors continue to use the above
634:). The strong community support for
346:List of guest stars on 21 Jump Street
7:
1379:. There is indeed a whole category:
1297:I never asked him or anyone to come
815:List of The Daily Show guests (2011)
806:List of The Daily Show guests (2010)
801:List of The Daily Show guests (2009)
796:List of The Daily Show guests (2008)
791:List of The Daily Show guests (2007)
786:List of The Daily Show guests (2006)
777:List of The Daily Show guests (2005)
772:List of The Daily Show guests (2004)
767:List of The Daily Show guests (2003)
762:List of The Daily Show guests (2002)
757:List of The Daily Show guests (2001)
748:List of The Daily Show guests (2000)
743:List of The Daily Show guests (1999)
738:List of The Daily Show guests (1998)
733:List of The Daily Show guests (1997)
728:List of The Daily Show guests (1996)
718:'TV guest list' formats across Wiki:
331:List of guest stars on Sesame Street
1023:WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias
941:WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias
616:WP:HowToOvercomeWikiDemographicBias
321:List of guest stars on The Simpsons
849:(wink) when it comes to the above
502:Whoops sorry, thought I signed it.
24:
827:Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists
708:Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists
688:Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists
632:Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists
620:Wiki Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists
578:appears on a particular show and
336:List of The Love Boat guest stars
1254:- And speaking of "dirty pool",
326:List of guest stars on Futurama
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
853:, these same policy arguments
1:
1668:Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists.
1664:List of The Daily Show guests
1558:List of The Daily Show guests
1545:List of The Daily Show guests
1407:List of The Daily Show guests
1402:List of The Daily Show guests
1398:List of The Daily Show guests
1394:List of The Daily Show guests
1385:List of The Daily Show guests
1377:List of The Daily Show guests
712:List of The Daily Show guests
674:List of The Daily Show guests
636:List of The Daily Show guests
624:List of The Daily Show guests
559:List of The Daily Show guests
291:List of The Daily Show guests
1541:Comment Conerning References
886:the long-standing precedent
851:Holy Grail of TV Guest Lists
1754:12:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1740:11:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1726:11:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1708:11:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1694:10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1680:10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1649:11:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1635:11:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1620:10:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1606:10:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1591:10:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1574:10:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1526:10:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1508:10:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1487:09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1465:09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1447:09:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1433:09:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1419:09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1354:09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1312:09:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1293:08:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1272:08:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1245:16:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1219:15:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1186:15:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
1057:08:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1035:07:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
1005:14:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
957:13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
924:13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
868:13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
858:guest lists' are deleted.--
700:13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
664:13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
600:13:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
535:09:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
512:16:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
498:17:42, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
465:02:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
443:01:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
414:09:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
392:03:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
361:List of M*A*S*H guest stars
271:17:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
250:15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
227:15:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
204:15:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
56:02:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
1796:
973:in 2005 (consensus "keep")
811:
402:Knowledge:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
371:List of Rachael Ray guests
306:List of guests on The Hour
1084:. Consensus is formed by
1772:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1498:dating back to August?
1225:in any form by any name
1092:discussion, as well as
985:in 2007 (no consensus).
1514:Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld
1496:Red Eye w/Greg Gutfeld
1471:creator of the article
884:one single nomination
640:larger Wiki community
1019:WP:NoDoubleStandards
937:WP:NoDoubleStandards
612:WP:NoDoubleStandards
1206:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
908:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
835:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
608:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1198:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1158:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1120:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
892:now being created.
710:(aka the Category
44:The result was
943:. That would be
822:
821:
716:precedent setting
496:
482:comment added by
445:
252:
238:
229:
215:
1787:
1774:
1367:- In June 2011,
722:
721:
584:future arguments
555:greatly improved
495:
476:
432:
428:
239:
216:
178:
177:
163:
111:
93:
34:
1795:
1794:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1777:deletion review
1770:
561:as a format by
477:
421:
120:
84:
68:
65:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1793:
1791:
1782:
1781:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1593:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1295:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1174:
1173:
1156:Problems with
1154:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1131:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1112:
1098:
1097:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
988:
987:
986:
980:
974:
965:
927:
926:
912:WP:IJUSTLIKEIT
871:
870:
843:WP:IJUSTLIKEIT
820:
819:
818:
817:
810:
809:
808:
803:
798:
793:
788:
781:
780:
779:
774:
769:
764:
759:
752:
751:
750:
745:
740:
735:
730:
720:
719:
703:
702:
667:
666:
618:, because the
603:
602:
588:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
538:
537:
516:
515:
514:
468:
467:
448:
447:
446:
430:
429:
418:
417:
416:
381:
380:
379:
378:
373:
368:
363:
358:
353:
348:
343:
338:
333:
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
280:
279:
273:
254:
253:
230:
181:
180:
117:
64:
59:
50:Black Kite (t)
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1792:
1780:
1778:
1773:
1767:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1660:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1594:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1551:
1546:
1542:
1539:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1492:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1475:Racingstripes
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1300:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1126:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
984:
981:
978:
975:
972:
969:
968:
966:
963:
960:
959:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
929:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
856:
852:
848:
844:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
823:
816:
813:
812:
807:
804:
802:
799:
797:
794:
792:
789:
787:
784:
783:
782:
778:
775:
773:
770:
768:
765:
763:
760:
758:
755:
754:
753:
749:
746:
744:
741:
739:
736:
734:
731:
729:
726:
725:
724:
723:
717:
713:
709:
705:
704:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
675:
669:
668:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
604:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
572:
568:
564:
563:Racingstripes
560:
556:
552:
547:
543:
540:
539:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:Racingstripes
501:
500:
499:
493:
489:
485:
484:Racingstripes
481:
473:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
453:
450:
449:
444:
440:
436:
431:
427:
425:
420:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
396:
395:
394:
393:
389:
385:
377:
374:
372:
369:
367:
364:
362:
359:
357:
354:
352:
349:
347:
344:
342:
339:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
283:
282:
281:
277:
274:
272:
268:
264:
259:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
236:
231:
228:
224:
220:
213:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
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:
57:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1771:
1768:
1732:RedEyedCajun
1714:WP:Bad faith
1700:RedEyedCajun
1672:RedEyedCajun
1667:
1627:RedEyedCajun
1598:RedEyedCajun
1566:RedEyedCajun
1561:
1553:
1540:
1518:RedEyedCajun
1457:RedEyedCajun
1411:RedEyedCajun
1389:
1364:
1346:RedEyedCajun
1341:
1337:
1332:
1324:
1304:RedEyedCajun
1298:
1280:
1277:
1251:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1193:
1175:
1169:
1165:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1116:as examples
1115:
1108:
1104:
1093:
1089:
1088:discussion,
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1043:
1039:
1027:RedEyedCajun
1013:
1009:
961:
949:RedEyedCajun
944:
932:
916:RedEyedCajun
904:WP:Listcruft
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
860:RedEyedCajun
854:
850:
846:
839:WP:Listcruft
830:
826:
715:
707:
692:RedEyedCajun
687:
683:
679:
671:
656:RedEyedCajun
651:
648:WP:LISTCRUFT
643:
639:
631:
627:
619:
592:RedEyedCajun
583:
579:
575:
554:
550:
541:
522:
518:
478:— Preceding
471:
451:
422:
397:
382:
275:
257:
184:WP:Listcruft
182:
170:
164:
156:
149:
143:
137:
131:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1639:(facepalm)
1516:article. --
1338:vote DELETE
1260:campaigning
1229:accumulated
1074:strong keep
945:real change
876:selectively
684:selectively
628:selectively
435:Ron Ritzman
400:Please see
147:free images
1666:, aka the
896:Holy Grail
880:Holy Grail
652:Holy Grail
1746:Gurt Posh
1718:Gurt Posh
1686:Gurt Posh
1641:Gurt Posh
1612:Gurt Posh
1583:Gurt Posh
1500:Gurt Posh
1479:Gurt Posh
1439:Gurt Posh
1425:Gurt Posh
1369:Gurt Posh
1342:vote KEEP
1264:Gurt Posh
1256:this post
1211:Gurt Posh
1105:unrelated
1094:precedent
1049:Gurt Posh
997:Gurt Posh
642:does not
527:Evans1982
457:BigJim707
406:Gurt Posh
263:Ltlane777
242:Gurt Posh
219:Gurt Posh
196:Gurt Posh
1143:Red Eye.
492:contribs
480:unsigned
424:Relisted
114:View log
1390:somehow
1365:Comment
1325:Comment
1299:comment
1278:Delete.
1252:Comment
1194:Comment
1151:WP:LIST
1040:Comment
1010:Comment
962:Comment
910:and/or
847:somehow
845:. But
841:and/or
571:WP:LIST
551:Red Eye
544:: This
523:Red Eye
475:offers.
398:Comment
384:Fodient
153:WP refs
141:scholar
87:protect
82:history
1543:- The
1285:Lexein
1237:Lexein
1178:Lexein
1162:WP:AGF
1086:active
888:source
644:really
557:using
452:Delete
125:Google
91:delete
1554:mosty
1139:first
1090:tacit
1014:those
900:their
855:never
622:(aka
168:JSTOR
129:books
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
1750:talk
1736:talk
1722:talk
1704:talk
1690:talk
1676:talk
1645:talk
1631:talk
1616:talk
1602:talk
1587:talk
1570:talk
1522:talk
1504:talk
1483:talk
1473:and
1461:talk
1443:talk
1429:talk
1415:talk
1373:talk
1350:talk
1333:both
1308:talk
1289:talk
1283:. --
1268:talk
1241:talk
1233:most
1215:talk
1182:talk
1170:this
1166:most
1135:only
1082:kept
1078:list
1070:Keep
1053:talk
1031:talk
1021:and
1001:talk
953:talk
939:and
933:some
920:talk
864:talk
831:some
706:The
696:talk
680:KEEP
660:talk
614:and
596:talk
590:).--
567:talk
542:Keep
531:talk
519:Keep
508:talk
488:talk
472:Keep
461:talk
439:talk
410:talk
388:talk
276:KEEP
267:talk
258:KEEP
246:talk
223:talk
200:talk
190:and
161:FENS
135:news
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
46:keep
1562:try
1141:on
1137:or
1109:not
914:.--
690:.--
580:why
576:Who
175:TWL
112:– (
53:(c)
1752:)
1738:)
1724:)
1706:)
1692:)
1678:)
1647:)
1633:)
1625:--
1618:)
1604:)
1589:)
1572:)
1524:)
1506:)
1485:)
1463:)
1445:)
1431:)
1417:)
1352:)
1310:)
1291:)
1270:)
1262:.
1243:)
1217:)
1196:-
1184:)
1176:--
1055:)
1044:am
1042:I
1033:)
1003:)
955:)
922:)
906:,
866:)
837:,
698:)
662:)
598:)
533:)
510:)
494:)
490:•
463:)
441:)
412:)
390:)
269:)
248:)
237:.
225:)
214:.
202:)
194:.
155:)
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
1748:(
1734:(
1720:(
1702:(
1688:(
1674:(
1643:(
1629:(
1614:(
1600:(
1585:(
1568:(
1520:(
1502:(
1481:(
1459:(
1441:(
1427:(
1413:(
1371:(
1348:(
1306:(
1287:(
1266:(
1239:(
1213:(
1180:(
1096:.
1051:(
1029:(
999:(
951:(
918:(
862:(
694:(
676:.
658:(
594:(
565:(
529:(
506:(
486:(
459:(
437:(
408:(
386:(
265:(
244:(
240:—
221:(
217:—
198:(
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.