917:, which some might argue includes the right for students to question normative opinions. After the shootings, most instructors initially encouraged honesty and openness in classroom discussions about Virginia Tech. The classroom was a "safe space" where no single opinion/emotion was privileged as "right" or denounced as "wrong." For many of us, the freedom to speak openly about our emotions was an important component to the healing process. Nobody went so far as to support the killer; but some empathized with his pain and loneliness; others said they'd decided to be more sensitive in the future toward social outcasts like Cho Seung-Hui. The tone completely changed, however, when Karson was arrested. Not wanting to be the next arrest victim, students and professors reverted obediently to reiterating the politically correct, "Fuck Cho Seung-Hui" attitude. Karson's situation opens the book on a whole new set of questions: Can professors still allow critical thought? Are all ideas equal, or are some more equal than others? Should we encourage dissent, or should we fear its consequences? In the post-911 era of surveillance and zero tolerance, how can we protect the Max Karson's of the world from being too radical, or from simply saying the wrong thing at the wrong time? These are important issues, and I can assure you people are talking about them a thousand miles from Boulder. That said, I do advocate making some major changes to the article. The only thing newsworthy about Karson is his arrest following the Va Tech massacres. We don't need to know where he went to high school, or the nature of his pissing contests there. We don't even need to know about 'The Yeti' except for its suggested connection to his being arrested. Obviously, more needs to be added to the article as the story develops. I could see the Karson case going all the way to the Supreme Court, but I could also see it fizzling out in 2 weeks. Let's keep the article concise until we know the case's outcome, at which point expand it we can revisit deletion.
864:
major story, but this is not a borderline case. I am not sure of the reason for the attempt to remove the articles about individuals involved in these events. My instinct was strongly in the other direction, and I do not think of myself as particularly sentimental. Are we trying to prove the high quality of WP by rejecting anything that might be considered sensationalism? Frankly, that is hopeless, WP is a representative of the common components of our culture, whatever they may be.
330:
1202:. Creating a wikipedia page for this guy doesn't mean that "we" are some how saying he's "good." All I've tired to do with this article is get people the facts about a notable person in a controversial situation. If you think there's POV, or would like to trim the article down, those are all good discussions to have — and I would appreciate the help and collaboration. But policies are policies and guidelines are guidelines. --
659:. So, it seems pretty clear to me people care about him outside of Boulder. Can I prove that people in Boulder are still talking about this three days later? I'm not sure how I would do that. If you give me your telephone phone number maybe I can have some people I know in Boulder call you. I can tell you there are plenty of people talking about it on the CU Boulder campus. How else would you expect me to go about this? --
121:. This article is about a student from Colorado who got arrested after allegedly mouthing off in class that he "would be capable of killing 32 people" following with "if anyone in here says they've never been so angry that you wanted to kill 32 people, you're lying." While interesting, we don't need an encyclopedia article about every kid that's ever shot their mouth off in class.
821:: No, I have no idea how many "nutjobs" "shoot of their mouths" and "publish" "undergroun newspapers." I don't know that you do either, and since the significant of this article is related to that, you shouldn't pose that question rhetorically. At least this "nutjob" seems to have a lot of people supporting him (see:
465:- those "references" are to the schools website and the student law centre (and incidentally, are dated in the future). The only part of this whole saga with any non-trivial coverage is the Virginia Tech bit, and I'll bet nobody except his family and his principal even remember the story now three days later.
1220:
of those media reports was the shooting and the victim was not the subject, so only those with external notability (eg the academics) kept their own article. So my position is to delete unless there are multiple non-trivial independent reports about Karson that do not involve the shooting. As a side
863:
first of all, notable nutjobs are notable, and much of the news and their interest and present day notability of people could be seen as falling into that general category. Major national newspapers report what is notable to their readers. In borderline cases we can inquire whether it is or is not a
717:
No. I am a CU Boulder student, but I've never met him. When discussing his recent arrest with other students, staff, and faculty, it seemed that no one (including me) knew the facts of leading up to and surrounding it real well. So, I decided I'd do the leg work and condense the relevant information
606:
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. The Rocky
Mountain News and the Westword are published state-wide. Unless you're trying to say newspapers in Colorado don't count or something like that? If a newspaper ever writes an article about something that isn't of the utmost importance to the
427:
better than I do. I've been editing wikipedia for awhile now, and I feel like I have a pretty good grasp on them, and like I said, if the article didn't meet the requirements in both of them I wouldn't have wasted the better part of a day on it, and a few hours on it now. So, could you kindly point
383:
is not a guideline, and is not sufficient reason to delete an article. Maybe Max Karson is significant outside of
Boulder, but there is nothing in the notability requirements about that. I don't know why you're pointing out things that aren't guidelines and even if they were aren't sufficient reason
358:
and its already low significance will most likely fade even more over time. The article also suffers from a local myopia. If the article could be rewritten in such a fashion that the lasting significance of this person in a context meaningful to users of
Knowledge is made clear, I wouldn't object
280:
In some cases, articles have been kept with Google hit counts as low as 15 and some claim that this undermines the validity of the Google test in its entirety. The Google test has always been and very likely always will remain an extremely inconsistent tool, which does not measure notability. It is
681:
In this case this is either whole thing is either a complete waste of my time, or I'm correct in believing that editors are trying to have this article deleted for their own proprietary reasons. Not only have I wasted close to eight hours now on the research, writing, and subsequent debate on the
539:
Correction then - the references are to the school's own website, the student law centre, a local paper, two local freesheets and a website who's lead stories today are "I like to watch The
Apprentice" and "The best wet-battered fried chicken in New Orleans". I can provide far better sources for a
298:
What do you mean, my "apparent strong emotions" about the article? If you spent as much time on a wikipedia article, on a topic that is more than notable, and it got axed because of other editors proprietary emotions on the topic, wouldn't that make you a little upset? Don't talk down to me. The
312:
I was referencing this statement: "I'll be very angry if you axe all of it for excessively emotional reasons." Neither anger nor excessive emotions should come into play here. Your personal investment of time has nothing to do with whether an article is notable or not. We want to be objective
806:
seems like the whole article is here just to promote the guy. I mean, do you know how many nutjobs shoot off their mouths and create a whole fury about it being a "free speech issue", especially at college campuses? Do you know how many people, especially at colleges, "publish" their own
908:
I teach at a university on the other side of the country from
Boulder. Since this story broke I've googled Karson's name every day to find out the latest. In addition to this case's obvious relevance to the (1) First Amendment, the Karson fiasco has wider implications regarding (2) the
1180:
We went over this for every victim, some people wanted each to have their own page, but since their notability is restricted to the event, that is a more appropriate place. Likewise, while this guy is semi-notable, really it is just the event he is associated with that is notable.
458:
this is ridiculous. If we had an entry on every schoolkid who got in trouble for acting like an idiot, we'd be up to ten billion pages by now. "The Yeti & Crux controversy" are nothing of the sort, they're a minor spat about a kid getting in trouble at school with
1238:, and academic institutions to pursue knowledge wherever it may lead, without undue or unreasonable interference." The Karson case marks a rare instance in which a student was arrested for comments made in a classroom. These developments have implications for the
1211:
He possibly meets the requirements (which is what I mean by semi-notable) - the only criteria which he could meet is that of multiple independent media reports, he fails all other criteria (which is fine, you only need to meet one criteria). My concern is that the
690:. If your motivations for wanting this article deleted can be explained in terms of wikipedia guidelines, I would appreciate a quick write-up about them in my talk page. Finals are coming up and I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this debate. --
1384:
hasn't changed since I last read it — it's not a guideline, and if it was, it's not a sufficient argument for deletion. I would expect that there would be more media coverage in
Colorado and Massachusetts for the reasons you gave. Either way, still passes
682:
topic, the people disagreeing with me claim to know more about wikipedia guidelines than I do, and won't explain where I'm wrong (if I am). I've made my point, no one has pointed out anything from the guidelines showing this article isn't right by
1250:
of his rants. It seems that many folks from the "Strong Delete" camp are wary of rewarding Karson's apparent cry for attention with further publicity. I understand and share these concerns, and will join in voicing them on the discussion page.
179:
Actually, this person is not even a victim. He's just some college student who got suspended for saying something grossly impolitic about the VT shooting. His primary involvement, and indeed his secondary involvement, in anything of remote
1198:— he is not semi-notable, he is notable according to those guidelines. I have not see anyone cite a wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Unlike the victims of VTM, it does not contradict other wikipedia official policies such as
218:
Woah, woah, woah. Did you read the entire article? E.g. the parts the come before his arrest for making inappropriate comments in class? The controversy over his newspaper was big news in
Boulder for a long time. Moreover, see
878:
Not a victim of violence, just of zero-tolerance. Numerous well publicized incidents, several newspaper articles about different controversial speeches or writings over an extended time and in different parts of the country.
303:, the google test isn't perfect but in this case it is further evidence in it's favor. You haven't produced a shred of evidence against it's notability except your own judgment. Yes, that makes me angry, and it's wrong. --
1025:. I am in agreement with the points detailed by M. Frederick above, and as such I won't repeat them. The relevance of the article is to the circumstances and specifics of how Karson is being handled, not the man himself.
261:. It took me six hours to do the research and writing for the article and I'll be very angry if you axe all of it for excessively emotional reasons. I wouldn't have written it if it didn't meet notability requirements. --
1325:. Does everyone mentioned in every issue of last week's Rocky Mountain News get an article here? No. Being kicked out of school for being disruptive is hardly notable, even in the context of the Virginia Tech massacre. --
1341:
Yes, he was mentioned in the Rocky
Mountain News, which is a "local" paper, though it is also distributed in Wyoming, and some other surrounding states, from what I've heard. But, you're right, if it wasn't for the
929:. It's fine that you're interested in the case, your just because you're interested does not make the subject notable. It's also fine that you think the case may one day go to the Supreme Court but understand that
257:. Is substantial as the source material covers the topic in sufficient detail, there are multiple sources, source material is credible and reliable. There's much more than what I cited in the article,
200:
Yeah ... I was just about to say that. I'm sorry if my nomination made it sound like this was a victim - this is about a student from
Colorado. I have reworded the nomination to make that clear. --
894:
Thanks. I was wondering how to do that. I named all the references. I'm not sure if I did it the most correct way. If there's documentation on this (I searched and didn't find any) let me know. --
552:. Show me a single piece of evidence that anyone outside Boulder has ever cared about this kid - or that anyone in Boulder is still talking about this now, three days later - and I'll reconsider.
1216:
of the media reports is actually the
Virginia Tech shootings and not Karson. Using the example of the many victims who made the media multiple times because of the shooting, we decided that the
530:. Now, maybe you don't know how to use wikipedia real well, but each of those newspapers have wikipedia articles, and you'll notice that none of them are "references to school websites." --
1149:. Not long-term notable, minor appearance in media related to a major event does not qualify. Perhaps reduce to one or two sentences in the "response" section of Virginia Tech shootings.
807:"underground newspapers"? What's the circulation of those "publications"? I don't see anything particularly notable about this person or any of the so-called publications he created.
736:
I'm afraid I don't see how that is relevant. Our decision whether to keep or delete this article is not based on whether the individual is known about on campus, it is based on the
764:
Recentism with no long-term ramifications or true relation to the Virginia Tech massacre. If any mention were necessary at all, a single sentence in that article would suffice. --
329:
That's true, they shouldn't be apparently they are -- on both sides. So, let's get back to the basics of notability. If you don't trust google news archive, then do the
110:
999:
lack of notability, in the extreme. If this is the level of notability required, then we can have about 1,000 articles for every decade a large university existed.
337:. Reliable sources are reliable sources. Multiple sources are multiple sources. You still haven't produced a shred of evidence otherwise. You don't get to ignore
1246:
applies to educational settings. My point is that Karson's arrest represents more than simply a subplot to the VT massacres and is relevant irrespective of the
671:
359:
to it. the problem is, I can see no way that can be accomplished. Voltaire couldn't make this guy seem significant beyond Boulder, and perhaps not even in it.
1230:
With due respect, those who continue comparing Karson's newsworthiness to that of the VT victims appear to be unfamiliar with the recent debates surrounding
1421:. Perhaps, but we're debating whether to keep a biographical article on Max Karson not an article on the topic of free speech. There is a difference. --
829:). Moreover, the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia has nothing to do with your opinion's about the topic of the article, and everything to do with
607:
state of the world that it doesn't matter? Maybe you can explain to me what you're getting at. To address your second point, he was publishing the
1243:
143:
The notability of this subject is so marginal as to border on a case of briefly-compromised anonymity. I support the call for deletion as per
1221:
note, I think you would be better off treating this discussion less personally, it certainly does not mean that your work is not appreciated.
258:
611:
in Amherst, which seems to be significant enough to show that people outside of Boulder "cared" about him. If that's not, then if you do a
782:. This person "has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject".
379:
before, and I agree according to the definitions in the essay, this article does have a lot of "recentism." But, as the essay points out,
612:
245:
bio" though I'll agree it is the largest part of the article. But the subject has been written about in reliable sources before over
933:. If and when the case goes to the Supreme Court, we can revisit adding an article for Mr. Karson and/or the Supreme Court case. --
545:
1305:
An interesting article, perhaps warrants a little bit of notice on the massacre page, but that's it. Definitely not an article.
1362:
Did you notice that almost all of your "100+ other sources" are from papers near his college in Colorado or from his hometown in
1011:
Deserves mention in the massacre article (as a related incident perhaps) but not a full bio article for someone who mouthed off.
979:- Notability is permanent, not temporary. As I said in my previous comment, this person meets the notability criteria set out in
883:
Please use the name= technique in the inline references so the same sources do not get repeatedly listed in the reference list.
1475:
is more than can be said for most of what qualifies as "notable" on this delicious slice of brutal populism we call Knowledge.
1459:
notes, it more than meets biographical and attributive criteria. In addition to the VaTech controversy, Karson recently outed
17:
83:
78:
1343:
737:
87:
826:
541:
70:
504:
523:
652:
1039:: There's several notable third-party articles regarding this topic. He seems to fit the notability requirements.
967:. This character is a non-notable publicity seeker of no interest or merit. His fifteen minutes is just about up.
670:
For a similar debate on a not-quite-unrelated subject that covers many of the same points as this discussion, see
515:
1552:
584:
You mean the pigeoniverous pelican doesn't have its own Knowledge article? That story was absolutely HUGE after
395:
My main objection is the recentism; my criteria for judging whether the article suffers from a recentism bias is
36:
1117:: If anybody is still talking about this guy in a month, then he warrants an article. Recentism at work here...
1551:
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
1063:
Point is he has been covered my numerous sources on his own accord outside of the VT incident. He is notable.
620:
567:
480:
334:
223:, Notability is NOT SUBJECTIVE. If someone becomes notable for whatever reason, they are still notable. --
1464:
1363:
656:
624:
242:
118:
1087:
1000:
728:
675:
1537:
1525:
1499:
1479:
1447:
1425:
1413:
1397:
1370:
1354:
1329:
1309:
1297:
1285:
1255:
1225:
1206:
1185:
1175:
1153:
1139:
1121:
1107:
1090:
1072:
1055:
1029:
1015:
1003:
987:
971:
955:
937:
921:
898:
887:
870:
855:
841:
811:
798:
786:
768:
744:
731:
722:
712:
694:
663:
599:
577:
555:
534:
490:
468:
440:
414:
388:
370:
345:
324:
307:
293:
265:
227:
213:
195:
174:
166:
I greatly sympathize with all of the victims and families of this shameful incident, but Knowledge is
158:
134:
52:
1083:
1012:
636:
527:
74:
207:
128:
274:
We will similarly try to not factor in your apparent stong emotions about the article. As for the
984:
783:
741:
1520:
1476:
1199:
1131:: "Recentism" is not a guideline and is not sufficient cause for deleting an article. Please see
341:, or pretend it say something it doesn't, just because it doesn't support your point of view. --
167:
1086:(Emmanuel College prof fired for reenacting the massacre), but we don't have an article on him.
66:
58:
1394:
1351:
1252:
1203:
1172:
1136:
1104:
1064:
918:
895:
838:
719:
691:
660:
644:
531:
437:
385:
342:
304:
262:
224:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1496:
1381:
1294:
1231:
1132:
964:
914:
852:
808:
648:
585:
380:
376:
354:
1456:
1444:
1239:
1026:
632:
1100:
from the deletion log, it looks like no one ever created an article for Nicholas Winset
951:. Coverage by multiple reliable independent sources has been clearly established here.
1386:
1347:
1322:
1222:
1191:
1182:
1164:
1150:
1118:
948:
830:
683:
433:
424:
338:
300:
254:
220:
49:
519:
1534:
1514:
1488:
1436:
1410:
1390:
1282:
1278:
1195:
1168:
1103:. So, maybe you could explain why that is relevant to the status of this article? --
980:
968:
930:
834:
779:
702:
687:
616:
589:
429:
420:
404:
400:
360:
314:
283:
275:
185:
148:
822:
1472:
1460:
1306:
104:
511:
508:
1508:
1492:
1440:
1422:
1367:
1326:
1281:. Just because articles were written recently doesn't mean they can't be cited.
1274:
934:
884:
765:
549:
396:
384:
for deletion in AfD nomination discussion. Maybe you can explain that to me? --
181:
144:
1455:. The worst part about the article, as it stands, is the way it is written. As
1366:? This is recentism and localism being confused for significant notability. --
201:
122:
1380:
Are there wikipedia guidelines on localism? I looked and couldn't find any.
795:
701:
I don't mean to pry, but do you personally know the subject of this article?
1317:. Yes, his case was mentioned in his local Colorado newspaper. This does
718:
in to a wikipedia article, as it more than met the guidelines for one. --
1041:
952:
866:
674:, which started, with discussion that is also germane forthis AfD, here:
171:
727:
So, it wasn't all that notable on campus, from what you're saying.
1171:. Perhaps I'm missing them and you could point them out to me? --
1545:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
640:
628:
1468:
1234:. Academic freedom is defined as "the freedom of teachers,
983:. I'd also highlight that the references goes back to 2002.
1511:
many times over. There's really no question about this.
1101:
100:
96:
92:
1163:: I don't see any of these requirements mentioned in
1507:, obviously. The article is well sourced and meets
1273:Either we follow policy or we don't. Clearly meets
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
913:abuse of power by college administrators, and (3)
1555:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1409:per Ronnotel. This topic meet our standards. --
428:out the contradictions between this article and
615:you'll see his story has been published by the
1463:. Given that he has been featured by both the
281:not and should never be considered definitive.
1533:Conflates news with encyclopedic notability.
963:. Let's not allow our vision to be fogged by
672:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sun-Kyung Cho
8:
436:so I don't make the same mistake again? --
1344:100+ other sources he's been mentioned in
1190:Again. Karson meets the requirements in
1293:. Within article retention guidelines.
352:My main objection is that this is pure
1244:freedom of speech in the United States
548:; that doesn't mean I think they pass
299:article meets all the requirements in
7:
1491:standards and is in line with the
1346:, that wouldn't be enough to pass
613:Google News Search on "Max Karson"
546:a bird being eaten by another bird
24:
931:Knowledge is not a crystal ball
259:see google news archive results
117:Yet another bio related to the
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1082:this guy is less notable than
1:
1435:. Subject meets and exceeds
738:Knowledge notability criteria
253:. This meets the criteria in
542:a man who has sex with goats
1471:for his exploits, Karson's
499:WHAT? The controversy over
419:Well, maybe you understand
1572:
1538:11:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
1526:16:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1500:16:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1487:. This article meets the
1480:06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1448:17:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1426:00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
1414:16:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1398:00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
1371:10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1355:01:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1330:00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1310:14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1298:11:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1286:00:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1256:04:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
1226:20:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1207:04:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1186:00:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1176:00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1154:23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1140:00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1122:22:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1108:00:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1091:21:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1073:20:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1056:18:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1030:18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1016:18:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
1004:17:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
988:15:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
972:14:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
956:14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
938:00:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
922:10:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
899:07:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
888:05:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
871:05:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
856:01:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
842:00:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
812:00:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
799:01:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
787:22:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
769:21:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
745:16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
732:15:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
723:22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
713:21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
695:22:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
664:21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
653:Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
600:21:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
588:ran it on a slow news day.
578:21:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
535:20:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
491:20:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
441:21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
415:21:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
389:21:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
371:20:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
346:20:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
325:20:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
308:20:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
294:20:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
266:19:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
241:This is not just another "
228:20:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
214:19:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
196:19:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
175:19:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
159:19:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
135:19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
53:15:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
1242:, and for whether or not
1548:Please do not modify it.
837:(which this passes). --
32:Please do not modify it.
851:per above arguments. --
621:Daily Hampshire Gazette
505:The Rocky Mountain News
462:no significant coverage
1465:Anti-Defamation League
1439:standards and upholds
1364:Amherst, Massachusetts
1098:Comment on the Comment
657:Cybercast News Service
625:First Amendment Center
335:lexis-nexis a la carte
243:Virginia Tech massacre
119:Virginia Tech massacre
46:no consensus to delete
184:is approximately nil.
1461:neo-Nazi Josh McNair
637:St. Petersburg Times
399:, and specifically
48:, default to keep.
676:Talk:Sun-Kyung Cho
516:The Colorado Daily
331:search on highbeam
645:The Seattle Times
574:
487:
1563:
1550:
1523:
1518:
1232:academic freedom
1070:
1067:
1050:
1047:
1044:
915:academic freedom
823:technorati stats
710:
649:Inside Higher Ed
597:
576:
573:
568:
565:
560:
524:The Daily Camera
489:
486:
481:
478:
473:
412:
368:
322:
291:
210:
204:
193:
156:
131:
125:
108:
90:
34:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1553:deletion review
1546:
1516:
1512:
1321:mean he passes
1240:First Amendment
1084:Nicholas Winset
1068:
1065:
1054:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1013:StuffOfInterest
703:
633:The Jawa Report
590:
569:
561:
556:
553:
503:was covered in
482:
474:
469:
466:
405:
361:
315:
284:
208:
202:
186:
149:
129:
123:
81:
65:
62:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1569:
1567:
1558:
1557:
1541:
1540:
1528:
1502:
1482:
1450:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1333:
1332:
1312:
1300:
1288:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1157:
1156:
1143:
1142:
1125:
1124:
1111:
1110:
1094:
1093:
1088:132.205.44.134
1076:
1075:
1058:
1053:
1033:
1032:
1019:
1018:
1006:
1001:132.205.44.134
993:
992:
991:
990:
958:
942:
941:
940:
902:
901:
891:
890:
873:
858:
845:
844:
827:blogpuse stats
815:
814:
801:
789:
772:
771:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
729:132.205.44.134
699:
698:
697:
668:
667:
666:
604:
603:
602:
494:
493:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
393:
392:
391:
375:I hadn't read
350:
349:
348:
269:
268:
236:
235:
234:
233:
232:
231:
230:
168:not a memorial
161:
115:
114:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1568:
1556:
1554:
1549:
1543:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1522:
1519:
1510:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1483:
1481:
1478:
1477:Double Dickel
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1451:
1449:
1446:
1443:quite well.
1442:
1438:
1434:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1412:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1379:
1376:
1372:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1340:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1331:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1304:
1301:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1289:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1257:
1254:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1062:
1059:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1007:
1005:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
989:
986:
982:
978:
975:
974:
973:
970:
966:
962:
959:
957:
954:
950:
946:
943:
939:
936:
932:
928:
925:
924:
923:
920:
916:
912:
907:
904:
903:
900:
897:
893:
892:
889:
886:
882:
877:
874:
872:
869:
868:
862:
859:
857:
854:
850:
847:
846:
843:
840:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
816:
813:
810:
805:
804:Speedy Delete
802:
800:
797:
793:
790:
788:
785:
781:
777:
774:
773:
770:
767:
763:
760:
759:
746:
743:
739:
735:
734:
733:
730:
726:
725:
724:
721:
716:
715:
714:
711:
709:
708:
700:
696:
693:
689:
685:
680:
679:
677:
673:
669:
665:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:Boston Herald
614:
610:
605:
601:
598:
596:
595:
587:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
575:
572:
571:(talk to me!)
566:
564:
559:
551:
547:
543:
538:
537:
536:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
497:
496:
495:
492:
488:
485:
484:(talk to me!)
479:
477:
472:
464:
463:
457:
456:Strong delete
454:
453:
442:
439:
435:
431:
426:
422:
418:
417:
416:
413:
411:
410:
402:
398:
394:
390:
387:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
369:
367:
366:
357:
356:
351:
347:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
323:
321:
320:
311:
310:
309:
306:
302:
297:
296:
295:
292:
290:
289:
282:
277:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
264:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
229:
226:
222:
217:
216:
215:
211:
205:
199:
198:
197:
194:
192:
191:
183:
178:
177:
176:
173:
169:
165:
162:
160:
157:
155:
154:
146:
142:
139:
138:
137:
136:
132:
126:
120:
112:
106:
102:
98:
94:
89:
85:
80:
76:
72:
68:
64:
63:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1547:
1544:
1530:
1504:
1484:
1473:Venn Diagram
1469:Drudgereport
1452:
1432:
1418:
1406:
1395:Craigtalbert
1377:
1359:
1352:Craigtalbert
1338:
1318:
1314:
1302:
1290:
1270:
1253:M. Frederick
1247:
1235:
1217:
1213:
1204:Craigtalbert
1173:Craigtalbert
1160:
1146:
1137:Craigtalbert
1128:
1114:
1105:Craigtalbert
1097:
1079:
1060:
1040:
1036:
1022:
1008:
996:
976:
960:
944:
926:
919:M. Frederick
910:
905:
896:Craigtalbert
880:
875:
865:
860:
848:
839:Craigtalbert
818:
803:
794:per Adambro
791:
775:
761:
720:Craigtalbert
706:
705:
692:Craigtalbert
661:Craigtalbert
608:
593:
592:
586:DrudgeReport
570:
562:
557:
540:story about
532:Craigtalbert
520:The Westword
500:
483:
475:
470:
461:
460:
455:
438:Craigtalbert
408:
407:
386:Craigtalbert
364:
363:
353:
343:Craigtalbert
318:
317:
305:Craigtalbert
287:
286:
279:
263:Craigtalbert
250:
246:
238:
225:Craigtalbert
189:
188:
182:significance
163:
152:
151:
140:
116:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1497:Sohailstyle
1453:Strong Keep
1295:TacoDeposit
1200:WP:MEMORIAL
906:Strong Keep
853:Oreo Priest
809:Tejastheory
276:Google test
239:Strong Keep
1457:Burntsauce
1445:Burntsauce
67:Max Karson
59:Max Karson
1382:WP:RECENT
1223:Sad mouse
1183:Sad mouse
1151:Sad mouse
1133:WP:RECENT
1119:Matt Gies
1027:resonance
965:recentism
911:potential
876:Weak keep
528:Salon.com
381:WP:RECENT
377:WP:RECENT
355:recentism
50:Sandstein
1535:Eusebeus
1467:and the
1411:Oakshade
1283:Ronnotel
1236:students
969:BTLizard
707:Dynaflow
609:The Crux
594:Dynaflow
501:The Yeti
409:Dynaflow
365:Dynaflow
319:Dynaflow
288:Dynaflow
251:The Crux
247:The Yeti
190:Dynaflow
153:Dynaflow
111:View log
1419:Comment
1387:WP:NOTE
1378:Comment
1360:Comment
1348:WP:NOTE
1339:Comment
1323:WP:NOTE
1307:Nyttend
1248:subject
1218:subject
1214:subject
1192:WP:NOTE
1165:WP:NOTE
1161:Comment
1129:Comment
1080:Comment
985:Adambro
977:Comment
949:WP:NOTE
947:as per
927:Comment
881:Comment
831:WP:NOTE
825:, and
819:Comment
784:Adambro
742:Adambro
684:WP:NOTE
434:WP:NOTE
425:WP:NOTE
339:WP:NOTE
301:WP:NOTE
255:WP:NOTE
221:WP:NOTE
84:protect
79:history
1531:Delete
1489:WP:BIO
1437:WP:BIO
1423:Crunch
1391:WP:BIO
1368:Crunch
1327:Crunch
1315:Delete
1303:Delete
1279:WP:BIO
1196:WP:BIO
1194:, and
1169:WP:BIO
1147:Delete
1115:Delete
1009:Delete
997:Delete
981:WP:BIO
961:Delete
935:Crunch
885:Edison
849:Delete
835:WP:BIO
780:WP:BIO
766:Mhking
762:Delete
688:WP:BIO
558:irides
471:irides
430:WP:BIO
421:WP:BIO
401:WP:BIO
164:Delete
141:Delete
88:delete
1393:. --
1350:. --
1135:. --
563:centi
512:times
509:three
476:centi
313:here.
203:BigDT
124:BigDT
105:views
97:watch
93:links
16:<
1521:acan
1509:WP:N
1505:Keep
1493:WP:A
1485:Keep
1441:WP:A
1433:Keep
1407:Keep
1291:Keep
1277:and
1275:WP:N
1271:Keep
1066:Yank
1061:Keep
1037:Keep
1023:Keep
945:Keep
861:Keep
833:and
796:TJIC
792:Keep
778:per
776:Keep
686:and
655:and
641:WDBJ
629:KVUE
550:WP:N
526:and
432:and
423:and
397:WP:N
249:and
170:. --
145:WP:N
101:logs
75:talk
71:edit
1515:coe
1495:.
1319:not
1167:or
1069:sox
953:Jpo
867:DGG
554:-
544:or
514:),
467:-
333:or
209:416
172:Ali
130:416
109:– (
1524:—
1513:—
1389:,
740:.
704:--
678:.
651:,
647:,
643:,
639:,
635:,
631:,
627:,
623:,
619:,
591:--
522:,
518:,
406:--
362:--
316:--
285:--
278::
212:)
187:--
150:--
133:)
103:|
99:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
77:|
73:|
1517:l
1049:.
1046:V
1043:.
507:(
403:.
206:(
147:.
127:(
113:)
107:)
69:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.