1170:
chronologically the "longest-lived former senator". The deleter alleges that the topic is "a completely original invention" and "certainly non-notable". However, several sources have been found and linked mentioning this title. Finally, the complaint about the second section of the list is that "it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired." I think this table could be shortened to maybe the 10 oldest living US Senators and included in this article. If it is not going to be included on this article, I would suggest including it in the
31:
1197:. The comparison with similar articles is actually warranted, since this all are based on the same idea, and so unless it can be shown that some exceptionally do meet the criteria, there's no reason to not delete them. I'll also note that many of the keep arguments are entirely unfounded, some of them are just "stop trying to delete these" without anything else whatsoever...
1356:. Good to see you're going after the real villains. There's the work of thousands behind these lists and they are being unrespectfully deleted for dubious thick-headed interpretation of "policies". Obviously this worsens the quality and usefulness of Knowledge, but who cares until there are "policies". Bureaucrats destroy everything they find. Good day. --
1189:. This is simply a trivial case study of "age at death" based on a specific set ("members of the US senate"/some other legislative bodies) which certainly has nothing to do with it. There might be a case for listing the oldest living senators somewhere, but that does not justify a list of the rest, which is indeed a
1281:
is constantly changing, yet the alleged difficulty of accuracy and verification is explained on the page. That would be a better option here as opposed to throwing up our hands and saying "just delete it". Just because a list is incomplete or can never be fully completed does not preclude a shortened
286:
The first section of the list is a very confusing table of historical holders of the record for "longest-lived former senator," a title that appears to have been invented by some
Knowledge editors. The start and end dates list the time period during which the person was the record holder. This topic
633:
I don't see how this fails the trivia rule. The article specifically says, "However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." This list seems selective and has a narrow theme. I don't see a
1115:
was the oldest living US Senator in 1996. The author writes, "The oldest living United States
Senator opens the session of the world's greatest deliberative body with two raps of his white gavel. "The Senate is now in session," twangs Strom Thurmond, the president pror everybody, a "How'ya doin'"
1013:
I don't know what other arcane rules you are referring to; I honestly don't care. I just want to stop this useful page from being deleted. I have tried to address the others' complaints as well as possible even when the complaints seemed silly or minor to me. I just think there should be a strong
801:
This is a direct quote from your link: "If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on ever referencing other articles or
1346:
because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a
997:
The issue is ultimately whether or nor who is "the longest-living United States senators among those currently living (incumbent or former) and a list of the individuals who, at the time of their deaths, were the longest-living United States senators among those current or former senators then
973:
The birth death dates may be sourced, but the order of who was the oldest amongst the then living current and former senators is something that only apparent by determining who was alive on each day and how old they were, which is more than what the sources indicate with birth and death dates.
1257:
per nom. Consensus at AFD recently has overwhelmingly supported not utilizing lists of "oldest living..."; largely because such lists are constantly changing as people age and die and maintaining accuracy and verifiability is a difficult and on-going task. Many editors consider such lists not
1169:
is considered an argument to avoid in these discussions." There needs to be a stronger reason to delete this than other stuff got deleted. Otherwise, there should be a bias toward keeping these pages. The complaint about the first section of the list is that it is "confusing" because it lists
316:
311:
320:
290:
The second section of the list ranks former senators who actually are living by their age.There's no evidence that this ranking is notable, and it has no bearing on their job since they're mostly retired. It's a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization of office holders and longevity.
1389:. Stating that one or two of the individuals on the list have a source stating that they, specifically, were one of the oldest living senators/etc. at the time does not justify these entire lists which, without sources discussing their status as the "longest-living X", is just
303:
112:
688:. These list has been maintained for many years from readily available information by people who obviously care about this information being included and that alone should prove "there's a market for it". Whether or not it is here should not be up to those who don't care.
1105:'s website explicitly mentions that he was the oldest living US Senator in 2019. The author writes, "The senator, who currently is the nation’s oldest living former United State Senator, has a long legacy of accomplishments that helped South Carolina and the nation."
870:
The first article seems to be a
Knowledge mirror. The rest of the sources could potentially be added to the article if reliable, as the senate article currently lacks sources. Though many items would still be unsourced, primarily with regards to the older
244:
1154:
280:
1415:, articles should be considered based on whether the sources can exist, not on whether the current article links to extant sources. Additionally, some sources have been collected above, proving that sourcing for this article's topic
1247:
don't keep track of the ages of former US Senators does not mean others do not keep track. In fact, several sources above have been found to keep track of former US Senators' ages and who the oldest US Senator or US Representative
864:, who was until recently the oldest living US Representative. It specifically mentions that fact in the article. The author writes, "Born in 1919, Mr. Wolff was the oldest living former member of the House of Representatives."
430:
425:
434:
373:
368:
417:
377:
178:
173:
182:
513:
360:
834:: There's no evidence that "oldest living person who happened to have been a member of the national legislature at some point during their lives" is a notable distinction backed up by reliable sources.
238:
165:
658:
1478:. It is not indiscriminate. I know this should not matter, but I could not resist checking views... 6,597 in July, 5,600 views in August and 8,544 so far this month. We should serve our readers.
752:
1158:
1131:
1041:
1022:
999:
975:
952:
929:
835:
816:
788:
764:
720:
951:, which is discouraged on the site. Specifically the policy says "Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."
1445:
for this topic, because none of them discuss this specific cross categorization specially as a group or set. And while calculating their ages based on their birth dates may not be
493:
205:
473:
307:
1040:
They aren't my rules, they're the rules of the wiki. Since we both have strong opinions on the matter, I'll leave the issue be and let others decide what should be done.
299:
40:
537:
998:
living" is ultimately a notable topic. As the dicssuic shows, people have differing opinions on the matter, so it will ultimately be up to the closer to decide.
1295:
1262:. I share that view which I consider now to be the standard modus operandi/precedent at AFD within the application of NLIST in these type of list discussions.
1217:
743:
575:
259:
152:
226:
137:
989:
In the end, those are still calculations. I don't see any rule saying there can only be a limited number of calculations included on a page?????? From
763:
Given that there have been thousands of congressmen, but less than 50 presidents, comparing a list of longevity for each seems like false equivalence.
781:
as important as the US president. The linked discussion already addressed many concerns brought up here, so I don't see a problem with including it.
1527:
1501:
1487:
1462:
1406:
1377:
1365:
1336:
1271:
1237:
1210:
1139:
1063:
1049:
1030:
1007:
983:
960:
937:
917:
886:
843:
824:
796:
772:
728:
711:
697:
680:
627:
587:
566:
549:
525:
505:
485:
464:
407:
350:
97:
1385:- Already mentioned several times above, this is just a cross categorization that provides no sources showing why these specific groupings passes
220:
1126:
senator, not the oldest living senator among both the then current and former senators. At the time the article was published, former senator
1449:, compiling that into a list article where there are no sources that actually discuss that data as the topic of "List of longest living X"
1206:
1036:
I literally was just explaining that I don't want the page deleted. I'm not trying to violate your rules (although they do seem arbitrary).
421:
216:
364:
169:
81:. I have to discount opinions that are basically only attacks on those who are of a different view, such as the opinion by Folengo; see
1174:
article in a similar format to the oldest man and oldest woman (one table for oldest all-time and another for oldest currently living).
865:
654:
1055:
909:
878:
756:
689:
413:
1162:
1135:
1045:
1026:
1003:
979:
956:
933:
855:
839:
820:
792:
768:
724:
266:
1566:
356:
1150:
276:
161:
103:
650:
1228:
per NLIST. Once they're out of office, nobody keeps track of how long they live: the two distinctions really have no connection.
966:
It is not synthesis; the sources for these death dates exist on the pages of the various US Representatives and US Senators. See
132:
125:
17:
1437:
Again, some sources on the ages of a couple of the individual people on this list, which is all the sources above do, does
232:
1430:
such as the difference between a birth date and present or a birth date and a death date are entirely permissible and
1054:(So where does one go to overturn these obtuse rules before more good articles are sacrificed at their Satanic altar?
146:
142:
928:
being born on
February 15, 1845 may be sourced, but is him becoming the oldest senator on April 12, 1933 sourced?
1548:
69:
46:
538:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_the_oldest_living_Major_League_Baseball_players
1202:
738:
Stop trying to delete all of these perfectly fine pages. This is annoying! See the delete discussion about the
623:
1323:
about the bygone careers of former public officials, and the articles contain a great deal of or are entirely
1296:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
1218:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
744:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
1117:
739:
1475:
1394:
1332:
1233:
1182:
1059:
913:
882:
693:
1544:
1106:
924:
The birthdates may be sourced, but the dates in which they became were the oldest are not. For example,
716:
618:
but the categories nominated are not a thing that reliable sources discuss. More examples of LISTCRUFT.
65:
1523:
1483:
1374:
1166:
874:
812:
784:
748:
707:
646:
545:
866:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/12/us/lester-l-wolff-influential-former-congressman-dies-at-102.html
1458:
1423:
1412:
1402:
1327:(ex. "Oldest senators (historic)"; the entire "List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha").
1316:
1301:
1198:
1018:
619:
615:
252:
856:
https://newjerseyglobe.com/campaigns/the-time-a-staffer-leapfrogged-his-boss-to-a-u-s-senate-seat/
1186:
1315:
due to being random cross-sections of career, age, and being alive. Knowledge is also neither a
610:
approaching discussing this for US senators but I do not thinks these are reliable nor provide
1361:
1328:
1267:
1229:
1127:
943:
Wouldn't that just be the incumbent oldest living senator's death date in almost all cases????
904:
The birthdates of all members of both Houses are routinely published by official sources,e.g.
676:
121:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1543:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1497:
1343:
848:
Here is a source from about 10 years ago with similar information to the US Senate article.
702:
That isn’t how it works. We aren’t trying to sell a product here; popularity is irrelevant.
603:
583:
562:
521:
501:
481:
460:
403:
346:
1519:
1479:
1446:
1442:
1390:
1386:
1320:
1312:
1259:
1194:
948:
861:
703:
669:
599:
541:
1393:. None of the keep votes above have addressed any of these concerns, instead relying on
1116:
here, a "Mighty glad to see ya" there, a pat on the back, a firm grip on the upper arm."
1454:
1427:
1398:
1112:
1102:
990:
967:
88:
1258:
encyclopedic (because they are inherently unstable) and in contradiction to policy at
113:
Articles for deletion/List of oldest surviving members of the House of
Representatives
1560:
1278:
1171:
611:
82:
1357:
1324:
1263:
908:
and that a given date is before or after another date should never need a "source".
672:
849:
451:
394:
337:
199:
1493:
579:
558:
517:
497:
477:
456:
399:
342:
1014:
bias against deleting pages that provide useful information and have analogues.
607:
300:
List of the oldest living members of the United States House of
Representatives
925:
287:
appears to be a completely original invention, and is certainly non-notable.
557:
I've added two more similar lists of Indian politicians to this nomination.
1118:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1996-03-04-1996064043-story.html
1286:
See this deletion discussion at US Presidents where the consensus was
1107:
https://fritzhollings.com/2019/01/01/happy-birthday-senator-hollings/
1474:
this list aids navigation and provides information meeting our list
1216:
See this deletion discussion where your concerns are addressed:
905:
1539:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
540:, trivial information with arbitrary and nonsensical criteria.
854:
This article talks about the seven oldest living US Senators.
25:
634:
proposal for another, better way to present this information.
514:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
1149:
One of the complaints is "Similar to the recently deleted
993:"calculating a person's age is almost always permissible."
614:. There are established terms for this kind of thing like
787:
is considered an argument to avoid in these discussions.
447:
443:
439:
390:
386:
382:
333:
329:
325:
195:
191:
187:
1021:
is not considered a valid argument in AFD discussions.
251:
494:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
811:The specific criteria concerning that argument is
668:: clearly a case a of cross categorisation. Fails
294:I am also nominating the following related page:
72:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1551:). No further edits should be made to this page.
574:Note: This discussion has been included in the
512:Note: This discussion has been included in the
492:Note: This discussion has been included in the
474:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
472:Note: This discussion has been included in the
414:List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha
1347:selectively populated list with a narrow theme.
850:https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/11850515
1130:, who was a few months older, was still alive.
357:List of oldest living members of the Lok Sabha
1492:Can you elaborate on how it aids navigation?
1151:List of oldest living United States governors
277:List of oldest living United States governors
265:
162:List of longest-living United States senators
104:List of longest-living United States senators
8:
1122:That article refers to him being the oldest
153:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
815:, which is not considered a valid argument.
777:In the American system, the US Congress is
719:is not considered a valid argument in AFD.
1373:for all four, echoing Folengo and others.
872:
746:
576:list of India-related deletion discussions
573:
511:
491:
471:
651:2600:1700:5FB0:5B90:EC44:551A:B198:6FF5
110:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
1111:This article mentions right away that
753:2601:484:c580:3420:5cb4:9158:86e2:784d
1294:an oldest living US Presidents list.
1159:2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670
1132:2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993
1042:2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670
1023:2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670
1000:2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670
976:2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670
953:2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993
930:2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993
836:2601:241:300:B610:74AB:87B7:9FD8:AA37
817:2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993
789:2601:241:300:B610:196B:664B:339B:F670
765:2601:241:300:B610:74AB:87B7:9FD8:AA37
721:2601:241:300:B610:F1BA:AEF9:9050:8993
643:: STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!
7:
1282:or selective list on the same topic.
41:deletion review on 2021 September 29
24:
275:Similar to the recently deleted
138:Introduction to deletion process
109:Previous AfDs for this article:
29:
1518:my rationale is pretty clear.
1157:)." However, as others such as
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1528:00:10, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
1502:23:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1488:23:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1463:23:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1407:16:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1378:11:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1366:06:39, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1342:I don't believe this violates
1337:23:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
1272:22:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
1238:23:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
1211:14:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
1140:22:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
1064:21:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
1050:05:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
1031:05:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
1008:05:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
984:05:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
961:05:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
938:22:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
918:19:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
887:17:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
844:12:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
825:01:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
797:05:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
773:12:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
729:22:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
712:19:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
698:19:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
681:06:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
628:00:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
588:19:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
567:19:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
550:14:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
526:14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
506:14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
486:14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
465:19:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
408:19:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
351:14:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
98:07:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
1191:completely original invention
906:https://bioguide.congress.gov
1311:Per the nom. The lists fail
536:per above, similar case to
128:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1583:
860:This article talks about
759:) 22 September 2021 (UTC)
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
1567:Pages at deletion review
1541:Please do not modify it.
1422:Additionally, your link
61:Please do not modify it.
740:oldest living president
1434:reasons for deletion.
991:Knowledge:Calculations
968:Knowledge:Calculations
947:That would seem to be
1165:) have pointed out, "
126:Articles for deletion
1428:routine calculations
1167:Knowledge:OTHERSTUFF
813:Knowledge:OTHERSTUFF
785:Knowledge:OTHERSTUFF
1514:I should have said
1424:Knowledge:Synthesis
1413:Knowledge:NPOSSIBLE
1302:Knowledge:NPOSSIBLE
1019:Knowledge:ITSUSEFUL
616:Father of the House
802:deletion debates."
1128:Jennings Randolph
889:
877:comment added by
760:
751:comment added by
649:comment added by
590:
528:
508:
488:
143:Guide to deletion
133:How to contribute
96:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1574:
1344:Knowledge:Trivia
662:
455:
437:
398:
380:
341:
323:
270:
269:
255:
203:
185:
123:
95:
93:
86:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1549:deletion review
1476:WP:LISTCRITERIA
1395:WP:ITSIMPORTANT
1319:nor a home for
1183:WP:NOTDIRECTORY
949:Knowledge:SYNTH
862:Lester L. Wolff
742:for more info.
644:
428:
412:
371:
355:
314:
298:
212:
176:
160:
157:
120:
117:
107:
89:
87:
77:The result was
70:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1580:
1578:
1570:
1569:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1426:mentions that
1420:
1380:
1368:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1298:
1284:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1199:RandomCanadian
1176:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1113:Strom Thurmond
1109:
1103:Fritz Hollings
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
940:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
858:
852:
829:
828:
827:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
733:
732:
731:
717:WP:INTERESTING
714:
683:
663:
638:
637:
636:
620:Vladimir.copic
592:
591:
570:
569:
552:
530:
529:
509:
489:
468:
467:
410:
353:
273:
272:
209:
156:
155:
150:
140:
135:
118:
116:
115:
108:
106:
101:
75:
74:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1579:
1568:
1565:
1564:
1562:
1552:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1537:
1536:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1411:According to
1410:
1409:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1345:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1283:
1280:
1279:oldest people
1275:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1256:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1243:Just because
1241:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1226:Strong delete
1224:
1220:
1219:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1175:
1173:
1172:Oldest people
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1001:
996:
995:
994:
992:
987:
986:
985:
981:
977:
972:
971:
970:
969:
964:
963:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
945:
944:
941:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
888:
884:
880:
876:
869:
868:
867:
863:
859:
857:
853:
851:
847:
846:
845:
841:
837:
833:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
786:
783:
782:
780:
776:
775:
774:
770:
766:
762:
761:
758:
754:
750:
745:
741:
737:
734:
730:
726:
722:
718:
715:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
682:
678:
674:
671:
667:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
642:
639:
635:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
594:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
572:
571:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
490:
487:
483:
479:
475:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
432:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
409:
405:
401:
396:
392:
388:
384:
379:
375:
370:
366:
362:
358:
354:
352:
348:
344:
339:
335:
331:
327:
322:
318:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
292:
288:
284:
282:
278:
268:
264:
261:
258:
254:
250:
246:
243:
240:
237:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
218:
215:
214:Find sources:
210:
207:
201:
197:
193:
189:
184:
180:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
158:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
139:
136:
134:
131:
130:
129:
127:
122:
114:
111:
105:
102:
100:
99:
94:
92:
84:
80:
73:
71:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1540:
1538:
1515:
1471:
1450:
1438:
1431:
1416:
1397:arguments.
1382:
1370:
1353:
1341:
1329:Newshunter12
1317:WP:DIRECTORY
1308:
1291:
1287:
1277:The list of
1276:
1254:
1244:
1242:
1230:Clarityfiend
1225:
1215:
1193:which fails
1190:
1178:
1148:
1123:
1056:96.250.80.27
1035:
1012:
988:
965:
942:
910:96.250.80.27
879:4.71.249.251
873:— Preceding
831:
778:
747:— Preceding
735:
690:96.250.80.27
685:
665:
645:— Preceding
640:
632:
608:some sources
606:. There are
595:
554:
533:
293:
289:
285:
274:
262:
256:
248:
241:
235:
229:
223:
213:
119:
90:
78:
76:
60:
57:
36:
1187:WP:NOTSTATS
239:free images
1520:Lightburst
1480:Lightburst
1383:Delete All
1155:discussion
926:Elihu Root
704:Dronebogus
542:Dronebogus
281:discussion
91:Sandstein
1545:talk page
1455:Rorshacma
1399:Rorshacma
1300:See also
604:WP:TRIVIA
598:as fails
66:talk page
1561:Category
1547:or in a
1516:Keep all
1447:WP:SYNTH
1443:WP:LISTN
1441:satisfy
1391:WP:SYNTH
1387:WP:LISTN
1321:WP:TRIVA
1313:WP:NLIST
1288:IN FAVOR
1260:WP:LISTN
1207:contribs
1195:WP:LISTN
875:unsigned
871:entries.
749:unsigned
670:WP:LISTN
659:contribs
647:unsigned
600:WP:LISTN
206:View log
147:glossary
68:or in a
1358:Folengo
1292:KEEPING
1264:4meter4
1124:serving
779:equally
673:defcon5
602:and is
431:protect
426:history
374:protect
369:history
317:protect
312:history
245:WPÂ refs
233:scholar
179:protect
174:history
124:New to
1494:pburka
1419:exist.
1375:Tintin
1309:Delete
1255:Delete
1179:Delete
832:Delete
666:Delete
612:WP:GNG
596:Delete
580:pburka
559:pburka
534:Delete
518:pburka
498:pburka
478:pburka
457:pburka
435:delete
400:pburka
378:delete
343:pburka
321:delete
217:Google
183:delete
83:WP:NPA
79:delete
1325:WP:OR
736:KEEP:
555:Note:
452:views
444:watch
440:links
395:views
387:watch
383:links
338:views
330:watch
326:links
260:JSTOR
221:books
200:views
192:watch
188:links
16:<
1524:talk
1498:talk
1484:talk
1472:Keep
1459:talk
1417:DOES
1403:talk
1371:Keep
1362:talk
1354:Keep
1333:talk
1268:talk
1234:talk
1203:talk
1185:and
1181:per
1163:talk
1136:talk
1060:talk
1046:talk
1027:talk
1004:talk
980:talk
957:talk
934:talk
914:talk
883:talk
840:talk
821:talk
793:talk
769:talk
757:talk
725:talk
708:talk
694:talk
686:Keep
677:talk
655:talk
641:Keep
624:talk
584:talk
563:talk
546:talk
522:talk
502:talk
482:talk
461:talk
448:logs
422:talk
418:edit
404:talk
391:logs
365:talk
361:edit
347:talk
334:logs
308:talk
304:edit
253:FENS
227:news
196:logs
170:talk
166:edit
1453:.
1439:not
1432:NOT
1290:of
1248:is.
1245:YOU
1209:)
283:).
267:TWL
204:– (
1563::
1526:)
1500:)
1486:)
1461:)
1451:is
1405:)
1364:)
1335:)
1270:)
1236:)
1205:/
1138:)
1062:)
1048:)
1029:)
1006:)
982:)
959:)
936:)
916:)
885:)
842:)
823:)
795:)
771:)
727:)
710:)
696:)
679:)
661:)
657:•
626:)
586:)
578:.
565:)
548:)
524:)
516:.
504:)
496:.
484:)
476:.
463:)
450:|
446:|
442:|
438:|
433:|
429:|
424:|
420:|
406:)
393:|
389:|
385:|
381:|
376:|
372:|
367:|
363:|
349:)
336:|
332:|
328:|
324:|
319:|
315:|
310:|
306:|
247:)
198:|
194:|
190:|
186:|
181:|
177:|
172:|
168:|
85:.
43:.
1522:(
1496:(
1482:(
1457:(
1401:(
1360:(
1331:(
1266:(
1232:(
1201:(
1161:(
1153:(
1134:(
1058:(
1044:(
1025:(
1002:(
978:(
955:(
932:(
912:(
881:(
838:(
819:(
791:(
767:(
755:(
723:(
706:(
692:(
675:(
653:(
622:(
582:(
561:(
544:(
520:(
500:(
480:(
459:(
454:)
416:(
402:(
397:)
359:(
345:(
340:)
302:(
279:(
271:)
263:·
257:·
249:·
242:·
236:·
230:·
224:·
219:(
211:(
208:)
202:)
164:(
149:)
145:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.