1203:: I haven't read or even clicked on the article so I have no idea if the content of the article is worth keeping or needs a total overhaul. However, I agree with those who say there has been enough coverage talking about the initial coverage and public reaction to pass NOTE. I don't think merging into the 2019 IPM makes sense because, let's be honest, this incident is what's getting coverage, not the rest of the march. I suspect the article title should be considered since it could be considered biased and I'm not sure there is a COMMON name for it. Edit: Having just clicked the link, I don't think the current title works since the incident involved 3 groups (the students, the IPM and the BHI's).
311:). I do think that some of the reactions can be cut down (I edited some of this yesterday to try to add objective event pinpoints to help guide how the reaction section should be driven) -there's still tons of reactions, everyone's brother having their word towards it, and we shoudln't have these all. But that should wait until after the event has died out from headline news, so we can figure the right perspective. Also I would argue that the headline is not POV compliant (even if that's common phrasing by reporting), it should be something like "2019 Indigenous Peoples March event", and potentially considered merged back to the March page if this ends up short enough. --
1171:, and all NOTNEWS has to say about this situation is "Knowledge (XXG) considers the enduring notability of... events". And it also says "Editors are encouraged to... develop stand-alone articles on significant current events". I'd say that this event is something that some non-zero number of people are going to want to look at even decades from now. Probably. I mean people delving into the social history of these times, as well as other people. It's not like the article is about a pileup on I-95. So NOTNEWS encourages us to create articles like this, and it's kind of odd to cite it as a reason to
1295:. IMHO it is entirely silly this kerfuffle got hyped up to being with. However, coverage by WaPo, NYT, BBC, and the like is not tabloid journalism - and has been on-going through today (initially siding one way, then waffling the other way once the initial coverage came out as biased). It actually is quite possible that this will have a lasting effect due to the very wide misreporting when this broke. At present - given the very wide national and international coverage - we are in a
792:, and other wikipedia articles. The IPM article was bloated with incident specific details / reactions unrelated to the planning and conduct of the Indigenous People's March. Merging to any one of these articles (Indigenous People's March, March for Life, Covington Catholic High School, or Black Hebrew Israelites) would bloat it up with incident specific details and media interpretations at the expense of otherwise distinct and clear articles. This is a textbook
872:, the creator of the Indiginous Peoples Day article, is agreeing that the "incident" article is also separately notable, and I, the creator of the forked MAGAkids article, agree that the name is not great (it was not even my first choice, but I was trying to keep participants' proper names out of it so as to maintain NPOV. As I said above "I am not committed to the name" but I think the topic is notable whatever we decide to call it. Peace,
277:. Notice how that policy includes "tabloid journalism". Also, since all of these "opinion" articles at respectable outlets were published solely for profit, they should be discounted here. I think everyone can agree here that this is just another Trump-related news cycle with zero lasting impact on anything. There might even be in-depth coverage from people who have been respected in the past, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't wait for
573:- Current events are always a tough call, and there's good-faith disagreement over how NOTNEWS should be applied. In this case, noteworthiness doesn't depend on tabloid coverage; the incident has received substantial, international, non-opinion reporting and analysis from respected mainstream sources. Since editors seem interested in writing about the topic, we can use this as an opportunity to build an article. ā
1371:
rather than merge - The indigenous march article is actually much less important than this incident. From what I've read and seen, that March was over before this occurred. Little of the coverage mentions the March, except to explain why
Phillips and his companions were nearby at in the first place.
686:
After seeing the first footage that emerged, to me it was clear that those kids were being kids, dancing to an approaching drum. Their outfit to me was irrelevant. You approach the subject from the Trump symbol side, which to me is secondary. Your first opinion, apparently, is that the group appeared
617:
for now. This is a controversy that erupted at that event, the Native
American / indigenous context is important, and I think it would be well-covered there. I also think we might consider a more general article on viral videos of this type that show people with Trump symbols apparently behaving in
827:
article and the section entitled "Incident" which was copied and pasted to begin this article. The March itself is notable, although media coverage of it was lamentably lacking. I could see with the amount of coverage the incident was getting, both via social media and in the main stream press, that
498:
clearly states these events " may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." Unlike other Trump-related incidents, this
1183:
right below is titled "Don't rush to delete articles" and opens with "Articles about breaking news eventsāparticularly biographies of participantsāare often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate
548:
I have since revised my initial opinion on this matter and believe this incident is deserving of its own article. The fact is this event happened when three separate groups - March for Life, Indigenous
Peoples March, and the Black Israelite group - all came together and this incident occurred. To
1046:
Worldwide attention, ongoing analysis in mainstream sources. Most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion, but this is not routine news, but a singular event which has provoked significant thought and controversy among a very wide range of people. If you were to write a special issue of a
930:
for now because the article on the
Indigenous Peoples March only covers this one day event and the vast majority of the media coverage for the march covered or mentioned this incident. This incident seems to provide a large part of that article's notability at this point. This new page seems to be
838:
in
America], with diverging views about what really had happened." Major news outlets continue to publishing series of articles and news broadcasts investigating angles of the story in terms of the role of social media itself, cultural intersections, US political polarization, etc. Social media is
663:
I actually spent quite a bit of time yesterday trying to guess which bias you assumed I had, though with your other edits I think I know now. I think our language difference might be a partial cause - "people" does not mean adults and "apparently" means by appearance, not necessarily in fact. My
493:
does state tabloid journalism isn't considered noteworthy, I will have to disagree with you that this incident will be treated as a fad and that this is not simply "tabloid journalism", though I do think caution should be exercised when editing this article. None of us can conclusively claim this
796:
editor disagreement, since some people think it is obviously notable and others think it is a news blip. In any case, it is incontrovertably attracting a lot of buzz on we won't know whether it will stick... but in the mean time there is a lot of reliable source coverage trying to dissect what
1095:
This has ongoing international coverage, and the current article is helpful for understanding the context and participants. From an international perspective, 'MAGA teens incident' would have been a useful title, but the article does come up on the search for articles containing those words.
306:
Granted, we should have waited to create this, but we're 5 days out and the story is still drawing significant headlines. It's a two-part story, one about the event, and the other about how the media are reacting to the event, with both stories feeding themselves back and forth (eg just now
1029:- Incident has received attention world wide. And sparkee discussions. Article sourced and the sources are good. I see no point in merging this as it contains info that is not available at the other article. This is whether we like it or not an event that has reached international level.
588:- as Masem best described in their !vote above this event is still attracting a fair share of coverage and is still very much a current event, so it is simply too soon to say, although I must say that I think this article at the moment still passes the notability guidelines described in
371:, let alone wanting the subject to get only some attention in an article on a subject to which it is only related by coincidence. This nomination does not convince me, on the contrary: I get the impression of someone wanting to silence a subject for no reason but personal unease.
1184:
dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge". So overall this is not a very convincing nomination. I'm not voting on the issue since I haven't examined the article, just making this one point.
1145:
This news story exploded nationally and even internationally. There is no way this does not merit its own article under the notability guidelines. I think it's likely that this topic will be brought up and discussed for years to come. If anything, the
822:
Main stream coverage is continuing with further interviews, responses and in-depth analyses. It is notable and has had significant coverage evidenced in the 49 full RS references with heavy use of inline citations in this article. I had created the
1401:
as it has a lot of significant media coverage. Also, this has been shown to be a prime example of the unreliability of viral videos and news stories commenting on them by various publications and therefore may have an impact on journalism itself.
780:), and I think its notability derives from the clash and subsequent culture war implications rather than from the Indigenous Peoples March. The event is "already covered" not only by the Indigenous People's March, but also by the
687:
to behave in a bigoted way, something which never came to my mind. Maybe my reply was too strong, but I think it would be fair to also Assume Good Faith on the schoolboys' behaviour to start with, which you obviously could not.
499:
one seems unique in the fallout that has occurred, especially in regards to the threats of bodily harm and even death directed at children by celebrities. Neither do I believe this incident should simply be redirected to
1254:
I am in Europe and almost every major
European newspaper and television news networks have covered this as an event (e.g. not as part of something else, but as a moment in itself .... hence, don't merge). If that is not
1353:
as it is a major news event within a period of intense social and racial division in the United States, with many different perspectives concerning the amount of blame the individual parties shared during the incident.
273:. Completely routine he said-she said, except there isn't any crime alleged. One could make the argument that it's noteworthy that tabloids printed garbage coverage of the event, but that's also completely typical and
208:
908:
It does not seem notable enough to have its own article; Frankly, I'd opine it wasn't even notable enough to be mentioned on current events. However, given the coverage, it merits a mention on a parent article.
738:
the article has already been moved to a new title, its just that the article was nominated for deletion under the old title hence the reason why the old title is the one that shows up in the nomination page.
367:. While the article name could be up for discussion, a bright light is not needed to see that this is an event of the highest iconicity. One wonders how the nominator could in a case this rare even think of
553:
because it would downplay this event's notability. Most people's interest in this matter seems to comes from the incident itself, not that it occurred in conjunction with the
Indigenous Peoples March.
347:
for anything under the old title - that name refers to a non-notable hashtag, and we clearly lack the sources to write an article about the hashtag, nor is there any reason to think they'll ever exist.
948:
back to parent article. Yes, mainstream media is still covering this, but that does not always mean it is notable. Also, there has been much hearsay, lies, and confusion in the coverage of this story.
1003:
It probably partly depends on the final name for the AIM Song MAGA Drum
Encounter and the description of occurences, but I think the event will retain significance as an example of American culture.
425:
I get the point, and thank you for that, but please notice that nominator sets the standard with "I think everyone can agree here", which is no less speculation than me giving my impression.
467:
834:
article described the incident as an "explosive convergence of race, religion and ideological beliefs ā against a national backdrop of political tension... The encounter became the
161:
281:, of which there likely won't be any. Note that countless Trump-related "incidents" were deleted in the past, and a couple were similarly related to insignificant school kids.
503:. At the very least, the incident should be considered a case study in sensationalism, but we should wait for the dust to settle before pushing to have this article deleted.
1237:
No convincing argument to delete. I really donāt get why I should care whether it is kept or merged. Whatās the benefit of either against the other? Doesnāt seem important.
202:
339:(it appears to be a hashtag some people are trying to push, but not one that has gotten enough coverage to even be mentioned in mainstream sources, let alone reaching
448:
713:
Before the edit conflict I was saying āMAGAkidsā is a ridiculous title. They are
Covington Catholic school students. If anything it should be renamed and merged.
760:-- "Already mentioned briefly at another article" is not a good reason to delete a lengthy and well sourced article on a notable-in-itself topic. As the guy who
397:
please don't speculate on the motivations of other editors. Comments on AFDs should be limited to policy-based arguments on the article, not other editors. See
93:
108:
1070:
931:
largely a duplication of an existing article. The existing ariticle is not large at this point so seems no justification in splitting it at this point.
308:
168:
847:
as it is biased and disrespectful. If the decision is made to delete this article, I strongly recommend that the content be merged back into the
332:
240:
134:
129:
596:. As other !votes have stated above (if the article is kept) I would not be opposed to a future discussion to merge in a month or two time.
532:
138:
664:
point was that this is more or less a genre of viral video now, whether warranted or not in any individual instance. This is why we have
1238:
776:
the IPM or in conjunction with the IPM. I think the topic is clearly notable based on mainstream media coverage (19 million ghits for
121:
88:
81:
17:
843:
and other social media intelligence agencies is in itself an interesting aspect of this story. I strongly oppose the original title
801:
for some thoughts on what to do in this case. I am not committed to the name, but I could not think of a better one that maintained
223:
190:
1079:
785:
495:
278:
102:
98:
1336:-- 10 days later and new developments keep coming. This is the most notable social media event in the US this year so far.
1282:
981:
That is true, but was it notable enough to be it's own page? I think it would be fine merged. Of course, I'm not an admin.
1429:
40:
1069:. Yes, it was blown up out of all proportion, but that's what makes it notable. Of considerable cultural importance: "
248:
1008:
971:
692:
649:
430:
376:
1314:
1276:. Continued coverage in US and international media. Knowledge (XXG) is NOTNEWS, but this has enduring notability.
184:
744:
601:
1412:
1393:
1381:
1363:
1359:
1345:
1326:
1308:
1287:
1277:
1268:
1264:
1246:
1229:
1212:
1193:
1159:
1147:
1137:
1120:
1105:
1087:
1061:
1038:
1012:
990:
975:
966:
The hearsay, the lies and the confusion make up this story and it is pretty much what makes the story notable.
957:
940:
927:
918:
900:
881:
860:
848:
824:
814:
765:
748:
722:
696:
677:
653:
631:
614:
605:
580:
563:
559:
534:
530:
512:
508:
500:
478:
459:
434:
416:
380:
357:
323:
297:
262:
252:
63:
335:
for now, since the previous name was chosen with no discussion, doesn't seem to appear in any sources, failed
180:
1242:
789:
402:
340:
1101:
1004:
986:
967:
953:
914:
777:
688:
645:
426:
392:
372:
244:
125:
1355:
230:
1425:
1189:
58:
36:
835:
797:
exactly happened -- something that
Knowledge (XXG) is extremely good at assimilating. Again, refer to
1155:
1048:
856:
740:
718:
597:
1168:
549:
say this event should be merged as a subset of the Indigenous Peoples March page to me goes against
490:
368:
274:
266:
1260:
1179:, that's just a guideline, a guideline with which I don't agree for various reasons, besides which
1133:
1113:
we have two events here, the initial reaction and the media backpedaling. All well sourced.--v/r -
577:
555:
525:
504:
353:
216:
798:
793:
642:
viral videos of this type that show people with Trump symbols apparently behaving in bigoted ways
1410:
1341:
1220:
per MPS. There is no clear merge target as the article says this occurred after the two marches.
1208:
1083:
936:
896:
1296:
1180:
1176:
589:
550:
398:
270:
196:
1390:
1377:
1322:
1304:
1097:
982:
949:
910:
471:
452:
292:
117:
77:
69:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1424:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
802:
761:
336:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1185:
1117:
1034:
673:
627:
494:
incident will have zero lasting impact when the media is still actively reporting on this.
411:
54:
1256:
665:
593:
1151:
1047:
magazine, "The USA in 2019," this would merit a mention (at least, if 2019 is like 2018).
869:
852:
733:
714:
319:
309:
criticism related to a interview with the spotlighted student causing more media stirring
1129:
830:
781:
619:
574:
349:
1403:
1337:
1204:
1074:
932:
892:
877:
810:
769:
1373:
1318:
1300:
1225:
283:
155:
524:ā I think the above option is better, but I have no prejudice against a merge. āā
1114:
1030:
772:
and also based on the fact that the crux of the incident did not actually occur
669:
623:
406:
312:
331:
for now, decide if it needs its own article later. Also, I've renamed it to
873:
840:
806:
1167:, at any rate the nomination isn't very convincing. The nominator cites
1221:
644:" ā with a bias like this I suggest you stay away from this subject.
1317:
to this article has merit - but best to discuss that after the AfD.
828:
this section would have to eventually be forked. A January 20, 2019
1150:
article should be merged into this one, not the other way around.
1420:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
668:, which you seem to be ignoring quite regularly on this page.--
1071:
The Covington Catholic fight is American politics in microcosm
891:- Keep or merge the article, but do not delete the history. --
151:
147:
143:
215:
618:
bigoted ways - the bullying of Latino/a students to "
468:
list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions
836:
latest touch point for racial and political tensions
229:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1432:). No further edits should be made to this page.
466:Note: This discussion has been included in the
447:Note: This discussion has been included in the
501:Indigenous Peoples March#Incident with MAGAkids
263:Indigenous Peoples March#Incident with MAGAkids
8:
109:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
449:list of Events-related deletion discussions
770:attempts to discuss on the talk page first
465:
446:
265:. There is no actual incident here, see
768:in the first place, I did so based on
333:2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident
241:2019 Indigenous Peoples March Incident
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
487:Keep for now, but reevaluate later
24:
839:still alight with it. The use of
94:Introduction to deletion process
622:" in late 2016 comes to mind.--
786:Covington Catholic High School
1:
1413:18:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
1394:22:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
1382:22:24, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
1364:19:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
1346:16:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
1327:15:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
1309:15:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
1288:20:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
1269:10:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
1247:03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
1230:23:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1213:20:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1194:18:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1160:00:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
1138:16:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1121:12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1106:12:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1088:05:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
1062:08:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1039:08:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
1013:02:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
991:01:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
976:01:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
958:01:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
941:23:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
919:22:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
901:22:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
882:21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
861:21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
815:21:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
749:21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
723:21:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
697:15:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
678:14:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
654:21:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
632:21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
606:20:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
581:20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
564:16:16, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
535:23:48, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
513:19:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
479:19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
460:19:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
435:19:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
417:19:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
381:19:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
358:19:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
324:18:58, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
298:18:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
253:10:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
64:00:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
1299:situation and should keep.
778:Covington Catholic Incident
84:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1449:
1315:Nathan Phillips (activist)
1422:Please do not modify it.
1313:I do think that merging
1252:Solid Keep, do not merge
1148:Indigenous Peoples March
928:Indigenous Peoples March
849:Indigenous Peoples March
825:Indigenous Peoples March
805:. Peace and WikiLove,
766:Indigenous Peoples March
764:forked the article from
615:Indigenous Peoples March
304:Week keep, minimum merge
239:This page may now be at
32:Please do not modify it.
790:Black Hebrew Israelites
1279:(Heroeswithmetaphors)
82:Articles for deletion
496:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
279:WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
1389:per Mattnad above.
261:Already covered at
868:So it sounds like
481:
462:
245:Anthony Appleyard
118:MAGAkids incident
99:Guide to deletion
89:How to contribute
70:MAGAkids incident
1440:
1408:
1285:
1280:
1059:
1055:
741:Inter&anthro
737:
598:Inter&anthro
476:
457:
396:
316:
295:
291:
289:
286:
234:
233:
219:
171:
159:
141:
79:
62:
34:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1430:deletion review
1404:
1283:
1278:
1053:
1049:
731:
472:
453:
415:
390:
314:
293:
287:
284:
282:
176:
167:
132:
116:
113:
76:
73:
53:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1446:
1444:
1435:
1434:
1416:
1415:
1396:
1384:
1366:
1356:PlanetDeadwing
1348:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1290:
1271:
1261:Britishfinance
1249:
1235:Keep or merge.
1232:
1215:
1197:
1196:
1162:
1140:
1123:
1108:
1090:
1064:
1041:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1005:JĆ¼rgen Eissink
996:
995:
994:
993:
968:JĆ¼rgen Eissink
961:
960:
943:
921:
903:
889:Keep or merge
886:
885:
884:
831:New York Times
817:
782:March for Life
754:
753:
752:
751:
726:
725:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
689:JĆ¼rgen Eissink
681:
680:
658:
657:
646:JĆ¼rgen Eissink
635:
634:
620:Build the Wall
608:
583:
568:
567:
566:
556:Sir Trenzalore
540:
539:
538:
537:
527:Redditaddict69
522:Comment / Keep
516:
515:
505:Sir Trenzalore
483:
482:
463:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
427:JĆ¼rgen Eissink
420:
419:
409:
393:JĆ¼rgen Eissink
385:
384:
373:JĆ¼rgen Eissink
361:
360:
326:
259:
258:
257:
256:
173:
112:
111:
106:
96:
91:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1445:
1433:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1414:
1411:
1409:
1407:
1400:
1397:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1385:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1370:
1367:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1291:
1289:
1286:
1281:
1275:
1272:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1253:
1250:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:71.167.14.104
1236:
1233:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1144:
1141:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1091:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1052:
1045:
1042:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1024:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
992:
988:
984:
980:
979:
977:
973:
969:
965:
964:
963:
962:
959:
955:
951:
947:
944:
942:
938:
934:
929:
925:
922:
920:
916:
912:
907:
904:
902:
898:
894:
890:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
864:
863:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
837:
833:
832:
826:
821:
818:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
795:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
755:
750:
746:
742:
735:
730:
729:
728:
727:
724:
720:
716:
712:
709:
708:
698:
694:
690:
685:
684:
683:
682:
679:
675:
671:
667:
662:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
638:
637:
636:
633:
629:
625:
621:
616:
612:
609:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
582:
579:
576:
572:
569:
565:
561:
557:
552:
547:
544:
543:
542:
541:
536:
533:
531:
529:
528:
523:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
502:
497:
492:
488:
485:
484:
480:
477:
475:
469:
464:
461:
458:
456:
450:
445:
444:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
413:
408:
404:
403:WP:DISCUSSAFD
400:
394:
389:
388:
387:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
362:
359:
355:
351:
346:
345:Strong delete
342:
341:WP:COMMONNAME
338:
334:
330:
327:
325:
321:
317:
310:
305:
302:
301:
300:
299:
296:
290:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
255:
254:
250:
246:
242:
237:
236:
232:
228:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
182:
179:
178:Find sources:
174:
170:
166:
163:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
110:
107:
104:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
86:
85:
83:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
60:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1421:
1419:
1405:
1398:
1391:Tom Harrison
1386:
1368:
1350:
1333:
1292:
1273:
1251:
1234:
1217:
1201:Keep for now
1200:
1172:
1164:
1142:
1125:
1110:
1098:RebeccaGreen
1092:
1075:
1066:
1056:
1050:
1043:
1026:
983:Rockclaw1030
950:Rockclaw1030
945:
923:
911:Icarosaurvus
905:
888:
865:
844:
829:
819:
773:
757:
710:
641:
610:
585:
571:Keep for now
570:
545:
526:
521:
486:
474:CAPTAIN RAJU
473:
455:CAPTAIN RAJU
454:
364:
344:
328:
303:
260:
238:
226:
220:
212:
205:
199:
193:
187:
177:
164:
75:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1334:Strong Keep
1274:Strong keep
1259:, what is?
1186:Herostratus
1143:Strong keep
1093:Strong keep
820:Strong keep
758:Strong Keep
365:Strong keep
203:free images
1169:WP:NOTNEWS
1152:Rreagan007
1128:Relevant.
870:Oceanflynn
853:Oceanflynn
734:Trillfendi
715:Trillfendi
611:Merge back
491:WP:ROUTINE
369:WP:ROUTINE
275:WP:ROUTINE
267:WP:NOTNEWS
1426:talk page
1130:WesSirius
845:MAGA kids
799:WP:RECENT
794:Recentism
575:dlthewave
350:Aquillion
55:Vanamonde
37:talk page
1428:or in a
1406:MikeOwen
1338:Kire1975
1297:WP:RAPID
1205:Springee
1181:WP:RAPID
1177:WP:DELAY
1175:. As to
1073:," etc.
933:DynaGirl
926:back to
893:Jax 0677
841:Storyful
590:WP:EVENT
551:WP:UNDUE
489:. While
399:WP:AFDEQ
271:WP:DELAY
162:View log
103:glossary
39:or in a
1374:Mattnad
1319:Icewhiz
1301:Icewhiz
866:Comment
803:WP:NPOV
711:Comment
337:WP:NPOV
209:WPĀ refs
197:scholar
135:protect
130:history
80:New to
1257:WP:GNG
1173:delete
1080:Anselm
1031:BabbaQ
774:during
762:boldly
670:Pharos
666:WP:AGF
624:Pharos
594:WP:GNG
407:clpo13
288:umbolo
181:Google
139:delete
946:Merge
924:Merge
906:Merge
640:"...
329:Merge
224:JSTOR
185:books
169:Stats
156:views
148:watch
144:links
16:<
1399:Keep
1387:Keep
1378:talk
1369:Keep
1360:talk
1351:Keep
1342:talk
1323:talk
1305:talk
1293:Keep
1284:talk
1265:talk
1243:talk
1226:talk
1218:Keep
1209:talk
1190:talk
1165:Well
1156:talk
1134:talk
1126:Keep
1111:Keep
1102:talk
1084:talk
1067:Keep
1044:Keep
1035:talk
1027:Keep
1009:talk
987:talk
972:talk
954:talk
937:talk
915:talk
897:talk
878:talk
857:talk
811:talk
745:talk
719:talk
693:talk
674:talk
650:talk
628:talk
602:talk
592:and
586:Keep
560:talk
546:Keep
509:talk
431:talk
412:talk
401:and
377:talk
354:talk
315:asem
269:and
249:talk
217:FENS
191:news
152:logs
126:talk
122:edit
59:Talk
50:keep
874:MPS
807:MPS
613:to
343:.
294:^^^
231:TWL
160:ā (
1380:)
1362:)
1344:)
1325:)
1307:)
1267:)
1245:)
1228:)
1211:)
1192:)
1158:)
1136:)
1104:)
1086:)
1076:St
1037:)
1011:)
989:)
978:.
974:)
956:)
939:)
917:)
899:)
880:)
859:)
813:)
788:,
784:,
747:)
721:)
695:)
676:)
652:)
630:)
604:)
562:)
511:)
470:.
451:.
433:)
405:.
379:)
356:)
348:--
322:)
251:)
243:.
235:)
211:)
154:|
150:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
52:.
1376:(
1358:(
1340:(
1321:(
1303:(
1263:(
1241:(
1224:(
1222:9
1207:(
1188:(
1154:(
1132:(
1118:P
1115:T
1100:(
1082:(
1057:C
1054:ā¢
1051:B
1033:(
1015:.
1007:(
985:(
970:(
952:(
935:(
913:(
895:(
876:(
855:(
851:.
809:(
743:(
736::
732:@
717:(
699:.
691:(
672:(
656:.
648:(
626:(
600:(
578:ā
558:(
507:(
437:.
429:(
414:)
410:(
395::
391:@
383:.
375:(
352:(
320:t
318:(
313:M
285:w
247:(
227:Ā·
221:Ā·
213:Ā·
206:Ā·
200:Ā·
194:Ā·
188:Ā·
183:(
175:(
172:)
165:Ā·
158:)
120:(
105:)
101:(
61:)
57:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.