1431:
a substantial body of work published in reputable publications, she has been cited in a collection of critical essays, cited in the
International E-Journal of Advances in Social Sciences (IJASOS), "a high-quality open access peer-reviewed international online journal", in The Children's Literature Association Quaterly. As in scientific research when an author is cited that is significant. No one has to provide links on demand especially when they don't buy the argument you are pushing. I have tried to explain to you that a guideline is just that, it guides but does not force or compel. Notability is not a single editor's view but has a multitude of possibilities of levels of notability and I believe this article is notable enough given the sources we have. The best thing you can do is let the closer determine whether this article is a keep or not.
1316:
happening in most cases with interviews. The interview itself is a stand alone indication of value dependent of course on who is doing the interview. The danger is that with notability we try to apply the absolute highest level of whatever the guideline means, and I think there are big holes in the guideline, to everything that comes our way. That's not how
Knowledge works seems to me. We have more or less quality sources and we have more or less notable topics within the boundaries of Notability. Perhaps that's why this is a guideline and not a policy. The boundaries are flexible enough to accommodate different kinds of articles. Add: Value in literature/ writing /poetry is often tied to commercialism rather than intrinsic value of the work itself. We have to be able to judge where value begins and ends; I think the boundaries are blurred.
880:
magazines. They vary in size and age but they are seriously well regarded in the industry. These are the media of this industry to a large extent. They are only her publishers in so far as they are publishers of fiction, reviews and commentary and they have published her work in their magazines. Tor.com has used her reviews and articles which get referenced in other magazines and journals. These are not self publishing sources. These are independent and respected magazines who publish her and talk about her. Her collection
Through Immortal Shadows Singing (poems) is published by Papaveria Press which is not self publishing.
968:- As explained above, being the creator of content does not make you notable; having secondary coverage ABOUT YOU makes you notable. Appearing at a self-promotional event does not make you notable. Nor does being a writer of articles (she needs articles ABOUT her, not BY her). Interviews don't confer notability, nor do listicles, nor do passing mentions of articles or commentary she has written, nor do short bios prepared likely by her and displayed on her publishers' pages. I'm confused as to what people think are the secondary sources supporting her; I see none.
1686:, oh, I meant it. Every word. You are ignoring everything everyone else is telling you, repeating the same arguments after you have been answered, and demanding evidence that already has been presented, either here or in the article. You are not contributing to a constructive debate. But this is not the place to discuss your increasingly disruptive behavior, which is now down to
1787:
don't actually count as data points toward the initial question of whether the person has cleared GNG in the first place. So if you have to rely primarily or exclusively on first person Q&A interviews, because the type of third party third person journalism that GNG demands is virtually non-existent, then the topic has not cleared the notability bar.
1061:
simply to verify biographical details. So, in a nutshell, the debate here is only if this author is notable, based upon where she has been published, the places she has been asked to speak and so on. The question of whether âinterview-styleâ articles are adequate for third-party neutral coverage is the primary debate here, and given that most coverage
1867:
and that doesn't seem to be in doubt judged by the sheer volume of independent reviews cited as sources in her article. Ness has also received attention as evidenced by being invited to speak at WorldCon. I reject the assertion that a convention of that importance in the field is merely a vehicle for
1786:
person. That said, we don't have a rule that first-person interview sources are entirely forbidden for use â if you've already gotten a person over GNG on stronger sources, then you can sparingly use Q&A interviews as extra referencing for stray facts that still need a source â but the interviews
1236:
Notable enough per
Montana directly above, and Antiqueight. Add:Notability is a guideline not a definitive position on what we can write articles on. This BLP is about a woman who has created a body of work that is significant in size, is not self-published, and has enough attention to an invitation
64:
and others does appear to remove much of the concerns about this being technically an unsourced BLP. Consensus of most editors here - though arguments to keep are variable - seem to be that she passes one or more of the required thresholds for being notable enough for an article, and the sourcing has
1430:
You are demanding your version of secondary sources, your version of notability, and are supporting a rigid understanding of
Knowledge guidelines while ignoring the several editors here who support the article and the sources it has. Perhaps frustration is a two way street. Ness was interviewed, has
644:
This is genre fiction and this individual is notable in her field. Just appearing at all at WorldCon is clearly a major indicia of notability. By "real media?" The Sci Fi press covered this individual, her interviews in mainstream Sci Fi publications is also a clear indicia of notability, so all of
430:"Publisher's affiliated blogs" are not notability-bolstering sources if either (a) she has a direct affiliation with said publisher, or (b) the content is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person rather than being written about by other people in the third person.
1812:
Interviews are not the only source. Interviews published independent of the the person interviewed in a reliable source is no different than any content published in a RS. Oversight is present in such sources. An author writes with an opinion as does a person interviewed. We judge verifiability and
1573:
So I included an eyewitness account of her being there and speaking, and you dismiss it as "A passing mention that somebody didn't like a panel she was on is not significant." Which is it? You wanted proof (more than a schedule from the event organizer) and I gave it to you. More moving goalposts.
1395:
Yes, I know, you have repeatedly mentioned her interviews and "speaking engagements" (she has none) which I and others have repeatedly explained are not independent secondary coverage. So I guess what you're saying is "no, there is not independent secondary coverage of the subject, but we think the
1162:
publisher, that is very different. NAUTHOR is a set of guidelines that assists in assessing notability, but these are just that, guidelines. An author can be notable by their publications alone if those publications result, as here, in notice by significant organizations, on this case, WorldCon. By
780:
disallowable as sources â you're absolutely allowed to sparingly use interviews as supplementary sources for stray facts in an article about a person who's already gotten over GNG on third-party third-person journalism â but what you can't do is claim that a person is notable enough for a
Knowledge
1315:
When I say, asked to speak I'm talking about interviews. Sorry I wasn't very clear on that. The fact that an author is interviewed is an indication of the significance of the author's work. There's nothing in the guideline that indicates that interview must then again be reviewed. I don't see that
913:
are self-published ones: people are not automatically notable enough for
Knowledge articles just because they have websites, or "contributor" profiles on the websites of their own employers, or Q&A interviews in which they're talking about themselves in the first person. And where her work has
1624:
Nonsense. The premise is that being an invited panelist at WorldCon is one indicia of notability. We have proved that a) she was an invited panelist, b) on the official schedule, and c) actually showed up. That proves she was at WorldCon not as an attendee, but as an actual presenter on a panel.
295:
of her work. But the only independent media source in evidence here is not even about her or her writing, but just briefly namechecks her existence as a bystanding giver of soundbite in an article about somebody else filing a disability-related complaint against an airline -- which means it's not
1210:
Further I see no evidence she was "recognized" by WorldCon. I see on her page one reference that says she attended a conference. Do you have a reference that shows her as being recognized? Or speaking? Or anything more significant than a list of hundreds of attendees that happens to include her?
1060:
is interviewed on the Random House blog, it would be perfectly acceptable. Within this area of genre fiction, just being published and interviewed by the sources cited in the article is clear indicia of work that is notable within the genre. 3) The sources that do not go to notability are used
879:
I'm puzzled by the high reference given to her as self published. She is published as a short story writer by Apex
Magazine, Clarkesworld, Fireside Magazine, Lightspeed, Nightmare, Strange Horizons" as well as Uncanny. These are some the biggest names in the science fiction and fantasy genre for
1540:
editing refers to pushing a point of view. Asking for a source that meets notability guidelines is not pushing a point of view. I looked at your new sources, and they still don't have significant coverage of the subject. A passing mention that somebody didn't like a panel she was on is not
296:
doing anything more to demonstrate her notability as a writer than any of the other sources, because it isn't "covering" her in a substantively noteworthy context. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be much, much better referenced than this.
1863:, which offers supplementary criteria that help balance the fact that authors often receive less coverage in proportion to that given to their work than do pop stars, for example, who generally receive more personal attention than their songs themselves do. NAUTHOR offers criterion 4:
1415:
I am getting frustrated by my repeated requests for actual sources and your refusal to provide links. If you aren't going to provide a source that gives independent, significant, secondary coverage, then repeating the same arguments does nothing for your case.
729:
Neither her gender nor her status as a "writer and reviewer" have anything to do with the issue. The notability test for people, regardless of their occupation and gender, always requires independent external recognition of the significance of their work in
56:. However, there's also reasonable counter-arguments regarding the amount of work she's had published in notable publications, the amount of overall coverage that she has received, and the critical attention she's received that's mentioned as a criterion in
1400:
There is a source that has her name in a list of attendees (with literally HUNDREDS of other people, no significant coverage), but no source that says she spoke. Where is the coverage of her speech? Where is an article that says she was invited to speak?
1055:
is clearly met and there are no BLP violations. 2) The comments above about interviews being âself-published sources affiliated with the authorâ are also incorrect, as the author has no ownership or control of these sourcesâif an author published by
1569:
There is a source that has her name in a list of attendees (with literally HUNDREDS of other people, no significant coverage), but no source that says she spoke. Where is the coverage of her speech? Where is an article that says she was invited to
1868:
self-promotion: it is clearly a major event attracting large audiences, and an invitation to speak indicates the prestige of the speaker. Taken together, that's more than enough to convince me that the article meets our notability requirements. --
1514:, you can simply note the sources in the actual article. We now have... 27 citations. And I believe "having your work cited in another work" is called... (wait for it...) independent, third party coverage. At this point, Ikjbagl, you are becoming
1477:
Such a citation indicates notability. It most certainly is notable in terms of scientific research and much the same applies with non-scientific work. The fact that a published author cites another author indicates the value of the cited author.
559:
form of direct affiliation with her or her own publishers: newspapers and magazines she's not directly affiliated with, books by other writers, literary journals. Regardless of whether the works themselves were self-published or not, the
1855:: not terribly clear-cut, but nevertheless a keep. We lack a single big article that discusses her work and career, but rather we find a series of smaller reviews of the person and her writing. That is always a difficult call per
1098:. I looked through all of the references on her page and didn't find any that were useful. You just keep repeating the same thing over and over; can you actually list references that are not self-aggrandizing interviews that are
278:
As always, a writer is not automatically entitled to have a
Knowledge article just because it's technically possible to metareference her work to itself as evidence that it exists -- the notability test for a writer is being the
1237:
to a world event. We really have to be able to distinguish within notability, levels of notability. Notability is not one bar fits all but a flexible guide towards inclusion. Ness is notable enough and more notable than lots.
1887:
Albeit there doesn't seem to be a very high notability for her (to have an independent article easily), but I think she might be located at least at a minimum level of notability, to keep an/the independent article.
1595:
It's not about proof; the problem here is not about verifiability, it is about notability. And I think it's ridiculous to accuse me of moving goalposts when I've highlighted the same three words over and over:
756:
The New York Times has a "vested interest" in getting people to click on their articles. Please cite to a specific guideline that says that interviews by a major publication within the field is insufficient.
226:
333:
268:. The only notability claim in evidence here is that her work exists, and seven of the eight footnotes here are not valid support for notability at all: three are her "our contributors" bios on the
52:. There were valid concerns made that the subject has not been the subject of sufficient specific, in-depth coverage in reliable sources that leads to unambiguous passing of the standards set by
451:
The article which refers to the airline incident is there to give her estimated birthday and identify what it is specifically that causes her to use a wheelchair. Not as a reference to her work.
272:
websites of book or magazine publishing companies she's directly affiliated with, three are Q&A interviews in which she's speaking about herself in the first person on non-notable
60:. Good-faith disagreement over the amount of notability conferred by some of the interviews included is certainly valid, but the significant expansion and improvement in sourcing by
1813:
reliability based on oversight not on the content. We can and do use content in
Knowledge that is clearly non-neutral, for example, when we can rely on the oversight of the source.
1657:). Many users find accusations of tendentious editing quite jarring, and before you accuse a user of tendentious editing, you should have clear evidence (see the page about casting
1341:
all on its own is indicia that a writer in the field of SF/F has âarrived.â You are not invited to be a panelist or speaker there without a significant body of recognized work.
415:
should tune it up in no time. A publisher's affiliated blog is different from an amateur or promotional blog. I'll pop over there and see if we can tune up the source material.
814:
I agree with Twopower332.1938 and Montanabw that her commercial success as a writer and being an invited guest at Worldcon confer notability for her as a writer in her genre.
618:
Not if your source for her appearance at WorldCon is WorldCon's own self-published list of its own participants, it's not â it doesn't become a valid notability claim until
1110:
source? That is what you need for notability, because where she has written and where she has been asked to speak are meaningless- they are NOT independent or secondary.
179:
1185:
This is my clearest indicator that you do not understand notability. If Emily Dickinson's works hadn't been widely discussed by critics and in the secondary sources,
372:
220:
353:
313:
1167:
would pass notability because she was a recluse, her works were first published by friends, and it took another 50 years for literary critics to understand her.
1131:
carries no weight since it is an essay and essays are just the opinions of one or more editors but are not community supported either as policy or guidelines.
1625:
They donât invite non-notable people. When we combine this with the plethora of other material, the weight of the evidence tips the scale towards notability.
1286:
sources that cover your speech for it to count towards notability. Where is it she spoke? Is there significant coverage of her speech in a secondary source?
832:
126:
111:
1782:
person, where our notability requirements require evidence that the person and their work have been spoken about and analyzed by other people in the
738:
by other people in the third person in real media, and cannot represent her or her publishers doing the speaking themselves in Q&A interviews or
1712:
I already said I would stop commenting on this page. At this point, you're just being an ass. There is no reason for your incivility. Stop it.
1604:(the same word I've used over and over, not moving goalposts) of her as a subject, which is what you need to have actual encyclopedic content.
862:
reviews of collections which contain her work. Nothing on her in Gale Literature, but as she is largely self-published, it isn't surprising. --
1189:
You could write literally the best piece of literature that has ever existed, but if nobody recognizes you for it, YOU ARE NOT NOTABLE.
1000:
This appears to be an unsourced BLP and while numerous the keep votes skate over that. can we please have some policy based discussion?
914:
been published is not relevant to our notability criteria, either: people do not get over our notability criteria by being the bylined
776:â and not primary sources, or sources in which they're talking about themselves. Just to be clear, nobody has said that interviews are
186:
734:
that do not have a vested interest in promoting it â which is precisely why a person's sources have to represent her being spoken
106:
99:
17:
543:
be self-published, when it comes to establishing whether a writer would be notable enough for a Knowledge article, is the
152:
147:
970:
Can anyone point to a single secondary source that is reliable, independent, and has significant coverage of the subject?
768:
It's repeatedly stated all the way throughout our notability and sourcing policies that articles have to be supported by
241:
156:
1774:
No, the existence of interviews is not in and of itself a notability-maker â they represent the subject speaking about
208:
120:
116:
492:
The issue was discussed in a number of places including Worldcon and confirmed by Mari Ness on her twitter and blogs.
1841:
1579:
989:
720:
672:
139:
667:
Magazines have been buying her stories for 15 years. Tor.com has her as a regular contributor. Good enough for me
1914:
1818:
1483:
1436:
1321:
1256:
1242:
1136:
867:
399:
40:
1730:
Not fruitful to continue here as it is clear you cannot see your own problematic incivility behavior. Indeed.
1836:
liked her short story, reviewed it. That's 30 minutes of Googling. Are the goalposts going to be moved again?
551:
as support for her notability claims. To get over GNG, she has to have real media coverage in sources that are
512:: And I'm seeing recognized non-self-published credits here, so which works are allegedly self-published? Â *
202:
863:
1910:
1837:
1687:
1590:
1575:
1537:
1515:
886:
716:
668:
498:
457:
36:
1278:
Someone else asking you to speak is an act that happens independent of you, but I think you still need
198:
1893:
1814:
1769:
1658:
1479:
1447:
1432:
1390:
1317:
1273:
1252:
1238:
1132:
395:
1897:
1877:
1845:
1822:
1796:
1736:
1721:
1700:
1670:
1631:
1613:
1583:
1550:
1524:
1487:
1461:
1440:
1425:
1410:
1396:
subject is notable anyway." And I still don't see where you're alleging that she spoke at WorldCon.
1347:
1325:
1295:
1260:
1246:
1220:
1198:
1173:
1140:
1119:
1071:
1040:
1007:
980:
960:
939:
888:
871:
844:
823:
794:
763:
751:
724:
710:
676:
651:
639:
605:
581:
518:
500:
484:
459:
439:
421:
403:
383:
364:
345:
325:
305:
81:
1128:
1087:
956:
819:
380:
361:
234:
539:, a writer who won a major Canadian literary award for his self-published debut novel) â but what
1158:
These are independent publishers, not self-publishing companies. If a person is published by an
840:
480:
248:
599:, that is probably enough all by itself to confer notability, but there's other material also.
1860:
1792:
1717:
1691:
1666:
1609:
1546:
1457:
1421:
1406:
1291:
1216:
1194:
1115:
1036:
976:
935:
790:
772:
sources â that is, sources written in the third person which present independent unaffiliated
747:
706:
635:
577:
435:
341:
321:
301:
269:
95:
57:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1909:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1833:
881:
493:
452:
265:
1889:
1873:
1856:
1164:
273:
1653:
I will also politely ask you to review policy on accusing others of tendentious editing (
1541:
significant. Regardless, I will stop commenting here now because it's getting annoying.
1051:: 1) The relisting comment is specious and inaccurateâThe article has multiple sources.
1731:
1707:
1695:
1654:
1648:
1626:
1531:
1519:
1382:
1342:
1205:
1180:
1168:
1081:
1066:
952:
815:
758:
739:
646:
600:
513:
472:
416:
376:
357:
214:
143:
61:
1452:
Having your work cited in another work is not significant coverage about the subject.
859:
856:
836:
531:
were self-published or not, as it is rare, but possible, for self-published works to
476:
412:
257:
1090:. I don't think self-aggrandizing interviews by her own publishing company count as
1788:
1713:
1681:
1662:
1605:
1557:
1542:
1509:
1453:
1417:
1402:
1332:
1310:
1287:
1212:
1190:
1153:
1111:
1057:
1032:
1004:
972:
931:
786:
743:
731:
702:
631:
573:
536:
431:
337:
317:
297:
261:
1690:. I suggest that youâve made that point loud and clear, so now back away from the
1518:
in your debate. Your opposition to keeping this article is noted. It's one !vote.
1065:
require interviews of the subject, I have to say that such coverage does âcount.â
173:
1832:: One guy saw her panel at Worldcon, didn't like it. Some independent person at
1052:
53:
1869:
394:
a non-notable writer. We do not have adequate sourcing to justify the article.
66:
135:
87:
785:
sources she's got and third-party third-person journalism is non-existent.
685:
A person doesn't get over our notability criteria for writers by being the
1338:
596:
1565:
And I still don't see where you're alleging that she spoke at WorldCon.
1865:"The person's work ... has: ... won significant critical attention ..."
693:, she gets over our notability criteria for writers by being the
1905:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
568:
have to represent independent third party attention being paid
992:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
715:
Heaven forbid a woman be good at both writing and reviewing.
334:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
467:
That article does not unambiguously identify its subject as
1251:
Being asked to speak is an independent marker, by the way.
645:
this does in fact count. Please stop moving the goalposts.
855:
as there is some significant coverage. I found these two
1829:
169:
165:
161:
233:
922:, they get over our notability criteria by being the
527:
Nobody said it was a question of whether any of her
1003:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1661:). I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it. Best,
291:of herself and her publishers, to demonstrate the
1600:. An "eyewitness account of her speaking" is not
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1917:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1598:secondary, independent, and significant coverage
831:Note: This discussion has been included in the
411:This is a brand-new article and a little bit of
371:Note: This discussion has been included in the
352:Note: This discussion has been included in the
332:Note: This discussion has been included in the
312:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1563:
697:of media content written and created by other
373:list of New York-related deletion discussions
247:
8:
905:was self-published. The problem is that the
354:list of Florida-related deletion discussions
314:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
127:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
471:Mari Ness, so it's actually unusable - see
1359:
833:list of Women-related deletion discussions
830:
781:article if the Q&A interviews are the
370:
351:
331:
311:
379:, is the complaint department really on
360:, is the complaint department really on
276:, and one is a piece of her own writing.
1362:
1864:
951:per Twopower332.1938 and Montanabw. --
7:
564:you use to demonstrate the works'
287:coverage and analysis, in sources
24:
1163:your standard, I wonder if even
112:Introduction to deletion process
1364:discussion going into the weeds
1187:she wouldn't be notable either.
1086:I will direct you to this page
630:her participation at WorldCon.
260:of a writer, with no strong or
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
1567:Where is the source for that?
1398:Where is the source for that?
689:of media content about other
1536:Thank you for your concern.
926:of content created by other
1694:and let the process work.
1023:sources that are reliable,
535:a writer notable (see e.g.
102:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1934:
1898:20:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
1878:11:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
1846:23:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1737:06:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
1722:05:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
1701:23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
1671:00:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
1632:23:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
1614:00:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
1584:00:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
1551:23:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1525:23:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1462:22:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1441:21:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1426:21:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1411:21:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1348:20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1326:19:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1296:19:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1261:18:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1247:18:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1221:21:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1199:21:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1174:20:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1120:18:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1072:15:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1041:08:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
1008:08:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
981:02:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
961:04:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
940:12:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
889:12:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
872:11:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
845:02:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
824:11:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
795:12:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
764:21:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
752:06:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
725:03:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
711:01:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
677:01:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
652:21:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
640:22:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
606:21:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
582:21:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
519:21:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
501:10:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
485:08:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
460:21:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
440:22:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
422:21:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
404:19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
384:19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
365:19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
346:18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
326:18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
306:18:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
1907:Please do not modify it.
1859:. However, we also have
572:her work in real media.
32:Please do not modify it.
1823:18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
1797:16:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
1488:18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
1141:18:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
918:of content about other
82:13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
1572:
909:being used to support
100:Articles for deletion
1602:significant coverage
1104:significant coverage
1029:significant coverage
1019:Can anyone point to
595:: She appeared at
65:improved vastly. ~
1562:You wrote earlier
998:Relisting comment:
1808:
1807:
1094:coverage that is
1010:
847:
396:John Pack Lambert
386:
367:
348:
328:
264:claim to passing
117:Guide to deletion
107:How to contribute
1925:
1838:Twopower332.1938
1773:
1734:
1711:
1698:
1685:
1652:
1629:
1594:
1591:Twopower332.1938
1576:Twopower332.1938
1561:
1535:
1522:
1513:
1451:
1394:
1386:
1360:
1345:
1336:
1314:
1277:
1209:
1184:
1171:
1157:
1085:
1069:
1031:of the subject?
1002:
995:
993:
761:
732:reliable sources
717:Twopower332.1938
669:Twopower332.1938
649:
603:
516:
477:Roger (Dodger67)
419:
262:reliably sourced
252:
251:
237:
189:
177:
159:
97:
79:
34:
1933:
1932:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1915:deletion review
1815:Littleolive oil
1809:
1770:Littleolive oil
1767:
1732:
1705:
1696:
1679:
1646:
1627:
1588:
1555:
1529:
1520:
1507:
1480:Littleolive oil
1448:Littleolive oil
1445:
1433:Littleolive oil
1391:Littleolive oil
1388:
1380:
1365:
1343:
1330:
1318:Littleolive oil
1308:
1274:Littleolive oil
1271:
1253:Littleolive oil
1239:Littleolive oil
1203:
1178:
1169:
1165:Emily Dickenson
1151:
1133:Littleolive oil
1079:
1067:
1011:
988:
986:
864:DiamondRemley39
759:
647:
601:
555:independent of
514:
417:
194:
185:
150:
134:
131:
94:
91:
67:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1931:
1929:
1920:
1919:
1901:
1900:
1881:
1880:
1849:
1848:
1826:
1825:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1688:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1586:
1538:WP:TENDENTIOUS
1516:WP:TENDENTIOUS
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1443:
1413:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1201:
1144:
1143:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1001:
996:
985:
984:
983:
963:
945:
944:
943:
942:
892:
891:
884:
883:â Antiqueight
874:
849:
848:
827:
826:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
680:
679:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
611:
610:
609:
608:
587:
586:
585:
584:
549:in the article
522:
521:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
496:
495:â Antiqueight
455:
454:â Antiqueight
445:
444:
443:
442:
425:
424:
406:
388:
387:
368:
349:
329:
277:
270:self-published
255:
254:
191:
130:
129:
124:
114:
109:
92:
90:
85:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1930:
1918:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1903:
1902:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1886:
1883:
1882:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1851:
1850:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1835:
1831:
1828:
1827:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1811:
1810:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1771:
1766:
1738:
1735:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1709:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1699:
1693:
1689:
1683:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:WP:ASPERSIONS
1656:
1650:
1645:
1633:
1630:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1592:
1587:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1571:
1568:
1559:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1539:
1533:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1523:
1517:
1511:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1449:
1444:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1399:
1392:
1384:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1361:
1349:
1346:
1340:
1334:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1312:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1275:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1207:
1202:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1182:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1172:
1166:
1161:
1155:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:WP: Interview
1127:
1126:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1064:
1059:
1054:
1050:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1006:
999:
994:
991:
982:
978:
974:
971:
967:
964:
962:
958:
954:
950:
947:
946:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
895:
894:
893:
890:
887:
885:
882:
878:
875:
873:
869:
865:
861:
858:
854:
851:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
829:
828:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:
809:
796:
792:
788:
784:
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
762:
755:
754:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
733:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
714:
713:
712:
708:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
684:
683:
682:
681:
678:
674:
670:
666:
663:
662:
653:
650:
643:
642:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
607:
604:
598:
594:
591:
590:
589:
588:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
517:
511:
508:
502:
499:
497:
494:
491:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
462:
461:
458:
456:
453:
450:
447:
446:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
427:
426:
423:
420:
414:
410:
407:
405:
401:
397:
393:
390:
389:
385:
382:
378:
374:
369:
366:
363:
359:
355:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
330:
327:
323:
319:
315:
310:
309:
308:
307:
303:
299:
294:
290:
286:
282:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
250:
246:
243:
240:
236:
232:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
200:
197:
196:Find sources:
192:
188:
184:
181:
175:
171:
167:
163:
158:
154:
149:
145:
141:
137:
133:
132:
128:
125:
122:
118:
115:
113:
110:
108:
105:
104:
103:
101:
96:
89:
86:
84:
83:
80:
78:
74:
70:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1906:
1904:
1884:
1852:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1601:
1597:
1566:
1564:
1476:
1397:
1283:
1279:
1233:
1186:
1159:
1107:
1103:
1102:and provide
1099:
1095:
1091:
1088:WP:INTERVIEW
1062:
1058:Random House
1048:
1047:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1016:
997:
987:
969:
965:
948:
927:
923:
919:
915:
910:
906:
902:
898:
876:
852:
811:
782:
777:
773:
769:
735:
698:
694:
690:
686:
664:
627:
624:journalistic
623:
619:
592:
569:
566:significance
565:
561:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:Terry Fallis
532:
528:
509:
489:
468:
464:
448:
408:
391:
293:significance
292:
288:
284:
280:
256:
244:
238:
230:
223:
217:
211:
205:
195:
182:
93:
76:
72:
68:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1280:independent
1160:independent
1100:independent
1092:independent
1027:, and have
1025:independent
911:the article
547:being used
289:independent
285:third party
221:free images
1890:Ali Ahwazi
1861:WP:NAUTHOR
1692:WP:CARCASS
1017:Challenge:
901:said that
778:completely
620:real media
377:...William
358:...William
283:of enough
58:WP:NAUTHOR
1911:talk page
1830:this edit
1733:Montanabw
1708:Montanabw
1697:Montanabw
1649:Montanabw
1628:Montanabw
1532:Montanabw
1521:Montanabw
1383:Montanabw
1344:Montanabw
1284:secondary
1206:Montanabw
1181:Montanabw
1170:Montanabw
1108:secondary
1096:secondary
1082:Montanabw
1068:Montanabw
1021:secondary
953:Rosiestep
853:Weak keep
816:Smirkybec
770:secondary
760:Montanabw
648:Montanabw
602:Montanabw
593:Follow up
515:Montanabw
418:Montanabw
381:the roof?
362:the roof?
266:WP:AUTHOR
136:Mari Ness
88:Mari Ness
62:Montanabw
37:talk page
1913:or in a
1857:WP:BASIC
1339:WorldCon
1049:Rebuttal
990:Relisted
903:her work
837:TJMSmith
774:analysis
626:content
597:WorldCon
180:View log
121:glossary
39:or in a
1789:Bearcat
1778:in the
1776:herself
1714:Ikjbagl
1682:Ikjbagl
1663:Ikjbagl
1655:WP:AOTE
1606:Ikjbagl
1558:Ikjbagl
1543:Ikjbagl
1510:Ikjbagl
1454:Ikjbagl
1418:Ikjbagl
1403:Ikjbagl
1333:Ikjbagl
1311:Ikjbagl
1288:Ikjbagl
1213:Ikjbagl
1191:Ikjbagl
1154:Ikjbagl
1112:Ikjbagl
1033:Ikjbagl
1005:Spartaz
973:Ikjbagl
932:Bearcat
924:subject
907:sources
897:Again,
877:Comment
787:Bearcat
744:Bearcat
740:WP:SPIP
703:Bearcat
695:subject
687:creator
632:Bearcat
574:Bearcat
562:sources
545:sources
510:Comment
473:WP:EGRS
465:Comment
449:Comment
432:Bearcat
338:Bearcat
318:Bearcat
298:Bearcat
281:subject
227:WPÂ refs
215:scholar
153:protect
148:history
98:New to
1570:speak?
966:Delete
928:people
920:things
916:author
899:nobody
699:people
691:things
622:write
541:cannot
413:WP:HEY
392:Delete
258:WP:BLP
199:Google
157:delete
1870:RexxS
1834:Locus
1784:third
1780:first
1106:in a
736:about
628:about
553:fully
529:works
490:Reply
274:blogs
242:JSTOR
203:books
187:Stats
174:views
166:watch
162:links
16:<
1894:talk
1885:Keep
1874:talk
1853:Keep
1842:talk
1819:talk
1793:talk
1718:talk
1667:talk
1610:talk
1580:talk
1547:talk
1484:talk
1458:talk
1437:talk
1422:talk
1407:talk
1322:talk
1292:talk
1257:talk
1243:talk
1234:Keep
1217:talk
1195:talk
1137:talk
1116:talk
1063:does
1053:WP:V
1037:talk
977:talk
957:talk
949:Keep
936:talk
868:talk
841:talk
820:talk
812:Keep
791:talk
783:best
748:talk
721:talk
707:talk
673:talk
665:Keep
636:talk
578:talk
533:make
481:talk
469:this
436:talk
409:Keep
400:talk
342:talk
322:talk
302:talk
235:FENS
209:news
170:logs
144:talk
140:edit
54:WP:N
50:keep
557:any
249:TWL
178:â (
1896:)
1876:)
1844:)
1821:)
1795:)
1720:)
1669:)
1612:)
1582:)
1549:)
1486:)
1460:)
1439:)
1424:)
1409:)
1387:,
1337:,
1324:)
1294:)
1282:,
1259:)
1245:)
1219:)
1197:)
1139:)
1118:)
1039:)
979:)
959:)
938:)
930:.
870:)
843:)
835:.
822:)
793:)
750:)
742:.
723:)
709:)
701:.
675:)
638:)
580:)
570:to
483:)
475:.
438:)
402:)
375:.
356:.
344:)
336:.
324:)
316:.
304:)
229:)
172:|
168:|
164:|
160:|
155:|
151:|
146:|
142:|
1892:(
1872:(
1840:(
1817:(
1791:(
1772::
1768:@
1716:(
1710::
1706:@
1684::
1680:@
1665:(
1651::
1647:@
1608:(
1593::
1589:@
1578:(
1560::
1556:@
1545:(
1534::
1530:@
1512::
1508:@
1482:(
1456:(
1450::
1446:@
1435:(
1420:(
1405:(
1393::
1389:@
1385::
1381:@
1335::
1331:@
1320:(
1313::
1309:@
1290:(
1276::
1272:@
1255:(
1241:(
1215:(
1208::
1204:@
1193:(
1183::
1179:@
1156::
1152:@
1135:(
1114:(
1084::
1080:@
1035:(
975:(
955:(
934:(
866:(
860:2
857:1
839:(
818:(
789:(
746:(
719:(
705:(
671:(
634:(
576:(
479:(
434:(
398:(
340:(
320:(
300:(
253:)
245:¡
239:¡
231:¡
224:¡
218:¡
212:¡
206:¡
201:(
193:(
190:)
183:¡
176:)
138:(
123:)
119:(
77:a
75:c
73:z
71:a
69:m
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.