817:
page, and now this AfD, are a ubiquity of bedlam. "Merge" is as acceptable a result as any other at an AfD-discussion, and there is nothing that even remotely approaches a consensus on the talk page. Some time ago, an editor attempted to block any attempt to even discuss how the article should be handled. He made all kinds of bizarre removals and redactions, rendering the talk page an unreadable mass of lorem ipsum. I attempted to improve the article to the small degree that was possible; this included restoring the talk page. Restoring the talk page meant hours of sifting through endless revisions to make the fragmented discussions make sense. I also had to double-check that no actual BLP-vios removed during the slash-and-burn were accidentally returned, monitoring simultaneous discussions at the article talk page and the BLP noticeboard. The only other editor who was interested in this article was the one who made the ridiculous removals. He quickly lost interest when the BLPN discussion didn't go the way he wanted. I would have been perfectly within my right to boldly merge the article at that point. It would have been equally acceptable for me to have merged it when, after a reasonable amount of time had passed since the merger had been proposed, it received neither support nor opposition. I honestly don't give a fuck if the article is kept, merged, deleted, or made tomorrow's fucking TFA. Just don't misrepresent my actions or opinions. That I was "unable to build a consensus on the talk page" is utter bullshit; ditto for "asking AfD to override current consensus". If you can't be arsed to research the history you should abstain from commenting here.
2338:. Only looking at the article itself I fail to see anything in the article to make it worth keeping. Almoust everything about the church work was done by her and Gene Scott. It seems after his death she just took over and kept going but not really adding anything new. I admit I dont live in USA so for me this was the first time I ever heard of her but after a google search on her name I see she does seem to have some notibility atleast in the field of rumours. Still this article doesnt mention why exactly she is notable except of being a tv pastor amongts many many of them. Are we to have a page for each tv pastor? Can anyone even imagine how many there are around the globe? Still what is it that makes her a notable tv pastor? Merge the article with Gene Scots article would be the best option or delete it.
277:- Thanks to the fellow editor for bringing this request. I DON'T agree that this article would still lack notability if Marie Claire were added. But in any case, MC is effectively "banned." One or more admins even tried to ban it from the talk page, which not only I think is absurd. As it stands now, there are no valid sources in the stubby article at all, except 1. as rel her husband, 2. about a church that was sold which is not tied (@ least in the art.) to MS, and 3. about her preaching broadcast schedule. IMO WP BLPs should not function, especially exclusively, as advertisements for their subjects. I am an "inclusionist." 'Have never supported deletion of a WP article I'm sure. But this one IMO should go.
1745:
off-topic issues, or touch on controversial material that we have agreed through consensus should not be in the article. You ask by what logic or process will good sources be found, by a judge? No, by consensus. This is not "censorship", it is abiding by the decisions of the
Knowledge (XXG) editor community. The fact that you don't or won't recognize this reflects poorly on your grasp of Wikipedian principles. You are promulgating an illogical all-or-nothing approach that inevitably would lead to an empty shell of an article, which is pretty much where it stood a week ago, and exactly what I'm trying to avoid by adding well-chosen and well-sourced biographical details to the extent that they can be found. —
1317:
enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a
Knowledge (XXG) article. I feel like the discussion has slid from an offhand dismissal, to a delete nomination without a serious search for sources (I found the first 4 books in a few minutes at Google Books), to, once they were found, criticism of the depth of the sources (a chapter in a book is trivial?) or the names of the publishers. People involved in this AfD have made unhelpful comments like the subject is a "ridiculously trivial individual", the article is being stood up by the "MS fan club" and "we don't need an article about every TV preacher." Please try to look at this
1371:" *** Given the current state of the article, IF no consensus can be found to delete, I wholly support and would gladly assist, if asked, any editor's action to merge the article UNTIL such time the article actually says something and might be worthy of a standalone. *** This article consists of all of seven lines and even that consists only of her taking over GS's "ministry" + her broadcast schedule; it not only includes nothing NOTABLE about her, it includes virtually NOTHING about her period--no biography, no education, no prominence, no connections, no cultural identity, no leadership, no anything. Instead of
1669:'Better have a COLLECTIVE look at those sources, y'all! Now the dubious porn sources come in but the porn info is censored out? WTF kind of logic or process is that? Good sense and I'm sure WP procedure rel reliability of sources can't allow that to fly. How will it be decided what comes in and what stays out? Is there to be a specially appointed WP censor for this article? What about the nude modeling? What about the pony-girl phase? What will WP readers think when they read the cited porn sources? Does anyone really think this is a viable way to source an article?
740:"Merging would confound the issues of nudity and Christianity with the Gene Scott ministry". I don't see how it would, as there is nothing about it currently to merge. It won't be in the article until either a better source is found or there's a change of consensus as to the Marie Claire piece. When and if that happens, there still won't be any confounding, as the article can simply be moved back to a standalone. You're right about there being very little to merge. This is a pathetic article, and it wouldn't bother me one iota if it were deleted. I just figure that per
1251:(5) Next, Whitman 2009 appears to be a personal narrative of the author's spiritual or ministerial journey (e.g., "I study more in anticipation of ministry unto Jahweh all my life, and the tools Yahweh God has given me..." p.viii and " has often ... had periodic pastoral nuggets of exhortation for people to focus on only what she's saying, not anything else..." p.63) 'Can't see how any of these confer notability on MS. Sources can also still be found that post nude photos of s.o. alleged to be MS and either praise her looks or ridicule her perceived hypocrisy.
1778:" (currently redlinked). Does this merit an article? If it doesn't, why does Scott merit one? The claims made for her look ropey. (Actually the claim about her past is from a source that looks more carefully done than anything that is cited.) One claim within the current article is that "Scott is reported to claim to be able to speak 20 languages." There are two sources for this: an article that looks like the product of ten minutes' work, and a book from a very obscure publisher. Well, the claim is usefully discrete (and non-libelous). Let's see: Scott
2105:). This is dated 2009. This suggests that it has been there for four years. At its foot we read "©2014 Hearst Communication, Inc. All Rights Reserved." Hearst sounds to me like a company that could shell out quite a bit in a libel payment, yet I infer that its lawyers have played down or dismissed the risk of a successful libel suit. NB I wouldn't be keen to have this material added to the article even if the latter survived AfD. Nevertheless, it looks more substantive than the dribs and drabs about the woman's linguistic prowess, etc. --
509:: I'm glad you saw the follow up comments to your vote. It wasn't actually "official" action. More of a de facto banning. Mainly some heavy-handed actions by one or more certain WP admins. (who even tried to ban discussion of it on the talk page) and a chorus of some people who seem to have a personal emotional need for this article to exist, WP rules be damned (probably the basis for s.o. placing the "close connection to subject" tag). I'd refer you to the talk page, especially the top half to see how it went down,e.g.,
2002:: What about this AFD shows a "complete lack of consensus" to you and why are you asking for another admin to close it? It appears that activity here is just now picking up, and that a consensus is building for merge or delete. Only a couple "Keep" votes based on misapplication of WP policy, and a growing number of merge and Delete votes. IMO & IME "consensus" is at best a SLIPPERY concept both in real life and in Wikiworld, often used by those who want to get their way and avoid an up/down vote. The
2261:
the other sources I've looked at seem to lack authority, or to be very slapdash, or both. If a DELREV concludes that an article should stay deleted, then it should stay deleted; unless of course it is agreed in a second DELREV that "notability" (or whatever) has changed so greatly that the article should restart. Here the DELREV was ignored (or not noticed), and though AfDs that result from unilateral restarts can at times give rise to mildly entertaining argle-bargle, they're mainly a waste of time. --
793:" Here a specific "finding" by "consensus" was made by the involved editors (not me) that MC2009 is not reliable, d/n qualify for use in article. I'm not optimistic affaritaliani.it would meet the required standard set by these august contributors. ‘Haven’t read the WP policy about "confounding/overlapping Christianity and nudity" Even if that one exists :-), it's IMO not relevant 'cuz nudity can't come in per the "consensus." Is there really some other technicality that wasn’t followed?
517:. Coincidentally, an unusual number of prior participants on that talk page (weirdly or by coincidence) have been blocked from or voluntarily exited WP. One would have to go back into the history of the talk page to find the actual diffs., but the admin. who doctored the talk page literally expunged the MC2009 material from talk as promised by that admin in my Wikilinked refs above. Another user later added some of it back with his own critique.
1245:(3) Rel Carmichael 2013, not sure how one would argue that sponsoring a pizza party at a remote state prison and giving out religious literature the inmates didn't like would confer notability. Just like Barber, Carmichael is surely no authority on MS's language ability; however, with multiple sources mentioning the language thing, it would be IMO reasonable to mention the language claims, but absolutely not in WP's voice as before.
726:
Barbie
Bridges, and Mrs. Eugene Scott. As for the argument that the ministry is shrinking, notability is not temporary. Merging with the bio on the previous church pastor would confound the issues of Christianity and nudity with the Gene Scott ministry. Is there any source to show that Gene Scott was aware of the nude pictures? There is little overlap between the two topics, and Gene Scott had more than one wife.
1915:: Agreed--if this were being reduced to deductive reasoning ala "If A, then B" syllogisms. IMO, it's just one more illustration of the nothingness/non-notability of the subject for a very long time. As much pointed out, she has to be notable some way to stay, and it sure isn't from her church. The UA Cinema where MS preached for a short time IS notable, but not because of her. She doesn't appear 2 qualify under
2148:
Obits. mention family members, whether it’s the NYT or the
Bumblefudge Weekly Despatch. It doesn’t confer one iota of notability 2B named as a family member in an obit. And it doesn’t amount to “cover” of the family member of the deceased "in a national publication". And adding sources like this together with the other sources you offered 2 establish notability, you still get NADA. 0 + 0 = 0 and 5 X 0 = 0
610:'Don't know how I missed that. Must not have watched the article. I wouldn't object to a merge as long it involved losing the plug for her broadcast schedule in the text of the article. (Let's face it, there's not much to merge.) That info could be IMO appropriate to keep as a link to the cited broadcast website in "See other" or "External links" @ end of GS article.
1448:--making arguments and "citing rules" in a way that appear prima facie to be valid but totally and completely lack substance. What reasonable person who knows this subject, even if s/he included all the source material actually excluded for lack of reliabilty, would take seriously the statement, "...he is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader"?!
1239:(1) Barber 2010 mentions MS just once and IMO is surely no authority on her language abilities, so a ZERO. Barber's few words about MS mainly DO establish a now defunct CONNECTION between MS and the UA cinema, something completely missing in the article's mention of the historical building before a user recently deleted it.
1739:
Now as to the sources I've offered. Claiming as you have that if only a small snippet of information is usable from a particular source, that source should be entirely invalidated, contradicts common sense and
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Citing the NYT Eugene Scott obituary just for the fact that M.S. is
1729:
not…"; we have to take it in context and make a reasonable decision about what notability the sources (plural) confer. Not to mention the fact that coverage that would be trivial if it appeared in a local gazette doesn't quite equate to its triviality when the same information appears in the national
1354:
You can't have it both ways: offering sources you say are reliable to establish notability but then saying you're not sure if they can be used. There's simply no such WP authority. It is true that notability established by a reliable source is still subject to other WP rules. But there are not two
1311:
I'm not defending the quality of each of the sources above as information that could go into an infobox; however I think my argument that they are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability is still true. In brief, is a novel a good source for biographical details? No, of course not. Is it a good
2260:
is that there is now a long and detailed article on a part of this person's life that she clearly wants forgotten (an article that is imaginably mistaken and libelous, though Hearst's confidence in publishing it and leaving it on the web for years makes me doubt this). As for her current profession,
2147:
It’s frustrating to keep pointing out broken logic seemingly ad infinitum. There’s no objection to using NYT to establish MS was GS’s wife. The problem is your level of reasoning about cumulative trivial nothing sources adding up to notability (still persisting in your "thought experiment" above).
1273:
Finally, one other issue that is likely to come up later if not now: Most of these sources are extremely dubious as not being printed by major publishing houses: Whitman--CreateSpace
Independent Publishing Platform; Webb--CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform; Carvajal--Fear Nought Publishing;
1316:
of a non-fictional subject mentioned in the novel? Yes. I don't know if we have enough independent material to start talking about the alleged connections in Scott's past. And I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article. However there is definitely
1201:
Only one of those books, the longer-form one specifically about her, could confer notability. The problem is that the piece is entirely reliant, again, on a rumor that is unsubstantiated and unproven and arguably a BLP violation. The question remains as to whether such rumors are enough to confer
1156:
six books I listed as sources range from a straight up list of ministries, a novel, biblical commentary, film commentary, to an inquiry into misdeeds of the clergy. This isn't one-off reportage and I see no basis for a claim that someone with this kind of cultural impact falls beneath notability. —
1014:
With all due respect to those who disagree, I don't find the anonymous contributor's vote to Delete based on "dishonesty" completely without merit. It's not exactly in the same sense as the anon. user meant, but IMO there are multiple instances going way back in talk of "arguments" approaching WP:I
999:
One of WP's policies is to AGF. I always try to. It's normal when someone jumps into a discussion to not be fully up to speed about what's going on. But when a participant refuses to read and self-educate about the current state and history of the article, especially when pointed directly to the
491:), she could have owned the MC company and all those other people who talked "bad" about her to the article author--if it were false. Even if she is a (limited purpose?) public figure, I would think she could have proved the "actual malice" required and still owned 'em all--if it were a falsehood.
1000:
issues, and continues to merely interject comments not based on WP policy or the actual condition of the article, IMO a reasonable admin. could find consensus among those participants who show a baseline understanding of what is required for a WP article and are making informed, serious arguments.
243:
This has been discussed multiple times, in multiple places. Here it is, again. It is neither a "theory", nor a "BLP violation". The "Barbie
Bridges" stuff is completely verifiable through public records. The problem is, that at this point, we have no way to get it into the article without straying
221:
prior to her conversion to
Christianity. As I believe it to be a possible BLP violation, I will not link to it here, but it is in the talk page, the history, and some discussions in the BLP noticeboard otherwise. I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with
63:
Several of the keep votes have suggested that the article ought to be fixed up becuase the subject is notable, and one provided some sources to show that the article can be fixed up. However, even if this is so, in this case we have an issue with unreliable sourcing on a matter that is invasive on
816:
would cease to apply to
Melissa Scott if her article were merged into that of her dead husband. The fact that it got only one response, coupled with the fact that no one even bothered to remove the "merge" tags after over a year, shows how lightly trafficked this article is. The article, its talk
725:
states, "La nota predicatrice televisiva..." (the well-known television preacher). The
Knowledge (XXG) article itself has attracted attention in the press (MC). So much for wp:notability. Research shows that other names for this topic are Melissa Pastore, Melissa Pauline Peroff, Barbi Bridges,
60:, and it has been established that it is not a reliable source. Looking at the article, this is covered in a section entitled "Secretive past", which appears to consist of speculation. Much of the rest consists of fairly general personal data, made up of sources that contain very brief coverage.
1702:
First of all, claiming that others (like me) who don't agree with your viewpoint are "gaming the system" and "wasting time" is unproductive, uncivil and not AGF. I'm a longstanding member of the Knowledge (XXG) community and don't appreciate that comment. I've provided sources for this AfD in a
67:
The choice is therefore between a merge/redirect and outright deletion. The subject is covered in the Gene Scott article, which might suggest a redirect even if there is not really a consensus for it. However, I am calling this an outright deletion since the BLP problems would otherwise remain
2175:
The ideas of “limited-purpose reliability” within a source and that WP editors are supposed to by concensus line-item veto or approve RELIABILITY (not to be confused with relevance) of info within a given source seems IMO completely unworkable. Is there any specific WP policy or precedent on
1744:
which has controversial bio details I'd rather not touch at this time, to establish that M.S. has claimed knowledge of many languages, is also appropriate. We can pick and choose the bits of each source that are appropriate and improve the article, and leave out the bits that either deal with
1292:
Thank you, Paavo, for taking the time to research these sources. I was puzzled that a "keep" voter would list potential sources on the talk page while making no effort to incorporate them into the article. Your analysis seems to help clear that up. I can tell you right now that if this source
1888:
but its notability is largely based on its history and is essentially inseparable from the notability of its extremely famous former minister and its somewhat less famous current one. Which is why, after reading all the discussion here, I still come down in favor of merging and redirecting
839:
To be clear, I am explicitly nominating this for deletion. As my final sentence says, "I do not see how this person has enough notability to maintain an article even with the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the
922:
To keep an article just 'cuz some day a qualifying source might turn up mocks WP's rules WP:NOR, WP:Notability, etc. The main objection to this article IMO is that it says nothing and what extremely little nothing it does say is sourced to GS or MS--and even the MS-sourced cite is dead.
2308:: But B4 we go there, if that's what y'all want to do, assuming we admit Marie Claire in full can someone make a WP-policy-based argument for the proposition that any OR ALL of the contents of that article, if included in the MS article, would make MS notable? (As mentioned above, IMO
1122:
I'm a bit confused. You voted "keep" and added sources to the talk page, yet nothing has been added to the article. Why not expand the article using the sources you have found? It may sway opinions here, especially if the actual reason she's notable can finally be added to the article.
1493:; that's the dilemma this situation has always teetered on. Until a definitive source comes along and breaks the story for good, what we're left with is a pastor of a church with no source coverage of Ms. Scott directly, but rather coverage of her late husband and the church itself.
1258:
That leaves Webb 2013, which includes largely the same material as MC 2009. Since Webb is being offered as a reliable source to establish notability (IMO the ONLY one of the SIX offered by Brianhe for which a serious argument can even be made for establishing notability for MS),
1588:
If the rumor could be confirmed with reliable sources, I would probably argue to keep the article. As it stands, no one appears to be able to do so, which is why there's a problem: an article should not continue to exist based on the notability of a possibly damaging rumor.
222:
the questionable material, nor are there enough reliable sources to do so even if the notability was conferred by the questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD. Previously kept at
566:- There's nothing there to scrub or protect. As per copious discussion on article talk page: No notability, and totally lacking meaningful content or source citations because there are NOT any valid sources on the WWW except Marie Claire 2009 which has been "banned."
2010:
IMO that has serious applicability here. One or two contributors IMO are pushing the "Keep" position w/o much or any substance or WP policy to support them. As such, I respectfully request this discussion and hopefully building consensus be allowed to play out
1672:
And why is a blurb (that includes porn info) in a LOCAL magazine and a 5-page "chapter" in a virtually self-published (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) book all about her porn past permitted while a researched feature article in a national magazine
2014:
If an admin. is to get involved wearing her/his admin. hat at this point, I'd ask that it be to join in the discussion and give an opinion of the relative strength of reasoning presented in this discussion rel WP policy and the facts of the article. Best,
1363:
As for unhelpful comments, interjecting cavalier remarks or "offering" sources without REALLY offering them, or I.D.ing sources which clearly do NOT establish notability are IMO most unhelpful; and this sort of contribution wastes a lot of GF participants'
2073:
article mentions her, but only in passing, and in her husband's obit (which, FWIW, proves her husband's notability, not hers). The biggest problem I'm having finding reliable sources that might exist is that she shares a name with a well-known SF writer,
1851:, try this: If she isn't notable for activities or achievements outside her church (and as far as I can see she is not), and if her church is not notable (and I don't claim to know), then she is not notable. How'm I doing? (And is her church notable?) --
1137:
Sorry, I'm kind of busy in real life at the moment. The nominator questioned the subject's notability and availability of reliable sources, and I spoke to that. AFAIK AfDs often proceed this way, not with a demand to expand the article before !voting. —
1440:
The question asked by at least two different editors that we still can't seem to get an answer to is WHAT specifically can we take from any of those sources--even if we assume they're reliable--that in any way--individually or collectively--establishes
2200:
remember, consensus can change. Consensus can also be incorrect. I see no reason to disallow the Marie Claire article. I know that there are arguments against its use, I just disagree with those points. We should be careful to not just drink the
1716:
mentioned Pastor Bob in passing, and Pastor Bob's sermons are listed in the local gazette but never reached the eye of published critical commentary, maybe we would agree that it wouldn't support a Knowledge (XXG) article on Pastor Bob. However, if
1019:, meaning reasoning not based on the article or WP policy. And that sort of input has not dried up here in the AFD discussion. If I'm wrong, anyone opposing delete or merge, please tie what you say to some SUBSTANTIVE and/or POLICY-based argument.
182:
1269:
If Brianhe IS offering Webb 2013 as a reliable source for use in the article--and to do so for any other reason w/b a serious self-contradiction--IMO MC2009 also deserves a revisit, because now we have a corroborating (and then some) source for
1359:
that it would be helpful if you had edited the article according to your "reliable" sources. At the very minimum, you need to point out WHAT SPECIFIC PART(S) of what source(s) you find make her notable AND are reliable for inclusion in the
1248:(4) About Carvajal 2009, this is a NOVEL! WTF? In some obtuse way the mention of WP article deletion (taken from MC2009?) might confer a grain of notability on the WP ARTICLE. But it's a long logical leap from there to notability for MS.
1397:: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." So, we have multiple independent, published sources discussing the subject as required by
1820:: 'Appreciate your cogent and slightly humorous, understated analysis. Great point IMO rel notable pastor @ non-notable church; I think you're the first to raise that. :-) Don't think you're missing anything. Would you care to vote?
2172:, I see the same broken reasoning as presented here. If Marie Claire 2009 was not a RELIABLE source and couldn’t be used, it IMO makes no sense to allow the use of much less authoritative sources that talk about MS’s porn career.
937:
I'm honestly tempted to simply redirect this article. While doing so during an open AfD-discussion is discouraged (not forbidden), as you said, this is just going around in circles. This discussion is obviously headed for another
911:
This discussion seems to just go around in circles. The problem is there are NO qualifying sources. The quantity of Internet sources on topic has shrunk to nothing (except MC2009, which has been disqualified); it hasn't grown.
1570:: Who among you believe(s), just arguendo, IF the porn career WERE to come in (via Webb2013 or MC2009), that would make the subject notable? If not, then IMO it's clear what needs to be done here--posthaste. IOW, does a former
807:
What the hell are you talking about, Unscintillating? "Unable to build a consensus"? "Overturn the current consensus"? "Content dispute"? What article are you looking at? I proposed a merge quite some time ago. It got precisely
1228:
has identified the problem here concisely. And because User Brianhe has been a main player in preserving this article yet if I recall correctly also in excluding any porn-career info about MS, this definitely calls for
295:
1107:
mention her life before Dr. Scott. If your point is, is her life story subordinate to his, it's just the opposite in the latter: Dr. Scott is mentioned peripherally in the chapter titled "Melissa Scott". —
766:
If you've been unable to build consensus on the talk page for a merge, why should AfD overturn the current consensus? The policy WP:ATD does not allow the use of AfD for what are really content disputes.
2169:
2165:
176:
646:
article). Given the anodyne nature of what's there now and the apparent unlikelihood that the article will be expanded meaningfully anytime soon, merger to Gene's article might be the best alternative.
223:
791:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
2292:--along with his view of how they make MS notable. I and other contributors have offered analysis rel why we don't think they make her notable. See links to those sources listed on the talk page
1865:
I'm just saying that a pastor can be notable without her church being notable, and vice-versa. Notability comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources, something this woman, IMO, lacks.
592:
has, however, deemed the article perfectly fine to link and discuss. It's quite conceivable that a better source may be available in the future. It is for this reason that I advocate merging it to
64:
the subject's private past. That is a BLP issue that requires more urgent action than waiting for someone to fix up the article. The consensus is clearly against having this as a separate article.
668:, per my previous proposal. It was opposed, with the false argument: "we have different article-standards for living and dead people". If anyone opposes a merge on these grounds, please note that
1263:
If so, we @ least now have something to use to flesh out the article a little. (Whether or not it confers notability and so deserves its own article is a separate issue, as others have noted.)
2057:. The only really independent notability is some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire. I conducted several research paths online, and found -- not much. There's a really nasty
1444:
As with a lot of what occurred the last couple years on the talk page, what we have here IMO is continuation of a long-ongoing, heretofore successful effort to keep this article that borders on
2144:
I've explained w/ evidence--quotes of yours, analysis of your sources, cited policy, etc.--my basis for believing your arguments here range from shaky to utterly w/o merit. No point to repeat.
1369:
is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.
2288:
It's not a vote, but rather the strength of argument(s). Brianhe has graciously provided links to the sources he's offered (except for the NYT obit. in the MS art. but I added)--they're all
1337:"I have a right to change my mind in the 2+ years of watching and contributing to this article." That IMO is absolutely reasonable. What is not reasonable is to just make up your own rules.
2101:
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or (pardon me) obtuse. Somebody called Gretchen Voss has a long article about our biographee, "The preacher's unholy past", on marieclaire.com (see
1922:
BTW, WHERE do you think this AFD is at? (I think it is at or close to consensus based on the WP:Consensus standard. For sure the vote but also IMO the level of reasoning is one-sided.)
1429:
And because the other FIVE of six sources offered say nothing individually and therefore nothing together. Five times zero still equals ZERO. The critical second part of the sentence
1614:
1545:
1516:
695:
315:
135:
2256:. And ditto for actual or likely alternative article titles. (I neither know nor much care which of these two options.) Why? Well, the only thing that seems to have changed since
56:
may be done at editorial discretion. The main issue here is reliability of sources. From the discussion, much of the subject's attention has been due to a text in the magazine
1321:
whether or not you like her message. Can we decide together at least that the subject is notable, then go on to decide how to improve the article, perhaps on its talk page? —
1703:
completely appropriate way and have both invited feedback on them on the article talk page, and days later added them to the article as a demonstration of their suitability.
996:. As it stands, the article says virtually nothing, especially after my removal of the gratuitous and unsourced plug for her ministry, "speaks 20 languages..." or whatever.
213:
Nominating this mostly procedurally, but also because it needs a discussion. This is a BLP about a woman who took over pastor duties from her husband after he passed (
596:–thus preserving the article and its history– until we can have an article that covers her entire life, rather than the tiny portion of it that is currently covered.
335:
2257:
197:
164:
142:
1063:
six books published since 2009 that cover Ms. Scott, one of which has an entire chapter devoted to her. This is more than enough to establish notability. —
1794:
languages (Spanish, Japanese, Tagalog) aside from English. When I click on any of these links I see a video (often at a wrong aspect ratio) of her talking
483:
I don't believe it is a theory or rumor. IMO it's either a fact or a falsehood. MC 2009 cited multiple sources w/ 1st-hand knowledge of MS. If MS is not a
108:
103:
2286:"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Knowledge (XXG) policy."
2008:"Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Knowledge (XXG) policy."
1725:(notice the bluelink), then I think we should agree that it supports a Knowledge (XXG) article on M.S. This is why the guideline says "trivial coverage
1680:" Mentioning s.o.'s name doesn't make her notable as per the missing second half of the sentence on WP policy you left out in your discussion above:
112:
158:
95:
1834:
While I have no problem with deletion, the argument: if her church isn't notable, she isn't either", is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
1346:
here is definitely enough to establish that she is a prominent cultural figure as a religious leader, and should have a Knowledge (XXG) article."
718:
This should already have been speedy closed as there is no deletion nomination and no WP:BEFORE. Requests for comment are handled under RfC.
453:
Is there an actual link to the discussion about the "banning of the source" by Knowledge (XXG)? I can't find it and would like to know more.--
154:
1642:
Without mentioning the controversial biographical material, I've incorporated book sources 1, 2 and 5 into the article, as well as pieces in
672:
would absolutely not cease to apply in such a case; it is in effect anywhere any living person is mentioned, anywhere in the encyclopedia.
1740:
his wife, is fine, and in fact this biographical detail wasn't captured by any online citations so it was even necessary. Citing the book
204:
744:, it would be better to merge to retain the history. History, as in back when the article actually contained some information about her.
1171:"someone with this kind of cultural impact" ? :-) 'Might want to have a(nother?) look at those six sources and/or see my summary below.
865:
469:
Even if a theory about someone's past can confer notability on them, we need multple, reliable sources. Is there more than this rumor?
840:
questionable theory. So I am nominating this for deletion, and would currently likely vote in favor if I ran across it today at AfD."
2170:
Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive188#Unreferenced defamatory assertions on Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor)
17:
897:. Incomplete information is not a reason to delete. If it can be confirmed and doesn't violate policy, then add the information.--
785:
WTF? There's not really a content DISPUTE, more of a DEARTH of content. It appears IMO that WP:BEFORE has been solidly met. And
2309:
2180:
1916:
1571:
786:
170:
855:
Delete this article for dishonesty. It fails to note Pastor Scott was formerly a porn star know as, "Barbie (Barbi) Bridges."
358:
A quick indpendent search on the web turned up a good deal of sources on the subject. Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet
1445:
1016:
639:. It seems that there isn't much about her lately; there was a time, around the time she started taking over the preaching
640:
1976:- this discussion shows, to me, a complete lack of consensus so far. Can another sysop re-list this or close it thusly?
2366:
1884:
1077:
Do these sources discuss the entirety of her life, or do they omit everything from her birth to her marriage to Scott?
993:
989:
40:
2347:
2321:
2293:
2270:
2236:
2214:
2192:
2114:
2087:
2044:
2024:
1968:
1931:
1906:
1874:
1860:
1843:
1829:
1807:
1754:
1697:
1663:
1628:
1598:
1583:
1559:
1530:
1502:
1457:
1424:
1410:
1384:
1330:
1302:
1283:
1211:
1180:
1166:
1147:
1132:
1117:
1086:
1072:
1053:
1028:
1009:
979:
965:
951:
932:
906:
889:
873:
849:
826:
802:
776:
753:
735:
709:
681:
656:
619:
605:
575:
556:
526:
514:
510:
500:
478:
462:
448:
434:
417:
395:
371:
347:
327:
307:
286:
265:
235:
99:
77:
1730:
newspaper of record; I think one could argue that any issue covered in NYT's A section is non-trivial by definition.
1485:- As I've said in past discussions, the Marie Claire article regarding the subject's past is true, but it cannot be
244:
into original research. It's not in the article at this time, and it shouldn't be. This is because it would violate
488:
425:
that says that due to vandalism the Knowledge (XXG) page had to be removed. I think we can protect pages now... --
1963:
1953:-Clearly the article has massive BLP issues due to verification problems and I'm not convinced the subject meets
1594:
1420:
1225:
1207:
845:
772:
731:
474:
413:
231:
2302:: Does the Marie Claire article's admissibility need a revisit, along the lines of what Paulmcdonald is saying?
1798:
with an interpreter putting what she says into one or other of the three languages. Am I missing something? --
723:
1637:
919:
The Italian source mentioned above, complete with a nude photo of MS, seems hardly reliable, hardly scholarly.
439:
That's the article that's been "banned by WP" because it mentions her past as a nude model and porn actress.
1722:
1232:
Firstly, all but one of these six sources are IMO junk, completely worthless in establishing any notability:
869:
1987:
1886:
861:
2210:
2075:
1870:
1839:
1415:
Because the weight of the references involve an unconfirmed rumor that is arguably a violation of WP:BLP?
1372:
1298:
1128:
1082:
975:
961:
947:
902:
885:
822:
749:
677:
601:
552:
458:
430:
422:
391:
367:
261:
91:
83:
2281:
2003:
1775:
2362:
36:
1610:
1541:
1512:
741:
691:
1261:
is Brianhe now totally okay with a discussion of MS's real or according to Webb, "theor", porn career?
2343:
1958:
1623:
1590:
1554:
1525:
1416:
1203:
956:
I can't find it listed anywhere, but I'm pretty sure that "wasting time" is not a reason to delete.--
841:
768:
727:
704:
470:
409:
227:
2202:
1721:
mentions M.S. in passing, and the content of her sermons is also mentioned by a notable author like
894:
1902:
719:
652:
190:
72:
2032:
1242:(2) Beverly 2009 also mentions MS just once, to say she took over from GS; that is not in dispute.
2317:
2188:
2020:
1927:
1825:
1693:
1644:
1579:
1453:
1435:
trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
1380:
1279:
1176:
1024:
1005:
928:
798:
615:
571:
522:
496:
444:
282:
1684:
trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability
1394:
249:
856:
2232:
2206:
2083:
2040:
1981:
1912:
1866:
1848:
1835:
1750:
1659:
1406:
1356:
1326:
1294:
1162:
1143:
1124:
1113:
1078:
1068:
985:
971:
957:
943:
898:
881:
818:
745:
673:
597:
548:
506:
454:
426:
387:
363:
343:
323:
303:
257:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2361:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1318:
589:
544:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
880:
Failing to note something is not dishonesty and dishonesty is not a valid delete-rationale.
2224:
1954:
1398:
813:
669:
585:
383:
359:
253:
245:
2339:
2266:
2110:
1856:
1803:
1618:
1549:
1520:
699:
2179:
IM(revised)O, even if the porn career comes in, notability is still nowhere to be found.
1490:
581:
1782:
herself that she has "a mastery of over 25 languages". That's five more languages; and
2069:
1898:
1498:
648:
69:
1486:
580:
The Marie Claire article hasn't been "banned". It was deemed by consensus to not meet
2313:
2184:
2067:, which is not a reliable source; nor are any of the blogs or websites she runs. The
2063:
2016:
1923:
1890:
1821:
1689:
1575:
1449:
1376:
1293:
discusses "her theoretical porn career", there's no way it's going to be allowed in.
1275:
1172:
1020:
1001:
992:
turns up one or more ADDITIONAL bases to DELETE this article as well. That includes
924:
794:
611:
567:
518:
492:
484:
440:
278:
217:), but does not appear to have any singular notability except for a theory pushed by
1351:** "prominent cultural figure as a religious leader..."?! You've gotta' be kidding!
2228:
2138:
2102:
2079:
2036:
1999:
1977:
1746:
1655:
1430:
1402:
1322:
1158:
1139:
1109:
1064:
339:
319:
299:
2166:
Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive107#Melissa Scott
129:
1779:
1787:
642:, she did have a higher profile (even leaving aside the rumor discussed in that
1015:
like it, WP:Begging for mercy, etc. which IMO add up more or less to a form of
2331:
2262:
2106:
1894:
1852:
1817:
1799:
1650:
665:
636:
593:
214:
53:
1355:
different standards; either the source is reliable or it isn't. I agree with
547:
discussion deemed the material to be acceptable to discuss on the talk page.
1494:
942:, meaning yet more time wasted on such a ridiculously trivial individual.
722:
is a publisher with articles on both the English and Italian Wikipedias.
2164:
In looking back at the prior discussions Brianhe cited on my talk page (
386:? What the hell is in the article at this point that doesn't meet BLP?
1712:
Let's do a little thought experiment. If the Nowheresville, Oklahoma
1274:
Carmichael--AuthorHouse; ('Not sure about Barber's Reaktion Books.)
362:
and then protected if necessary, but deletion is not the solution.--
224:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Melissa Scott (televangelist)
1574:
who becomes a non-notable tv preacher add up to a notable person?
2355:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
2312:
PLUS non-notable TV preacher STILL EQUALS non-notable subject.)
2205:
on this one and re-investigate the facts and not the folklore.--
2058:
1393:
Actually, taking sources in aggregate is explicitly allowed by
812:
response: an "oppose" by an editor who mistakenly thought that
2284:
is supposed to be based on WP policy including the following:
2006:
page does offer significant guidance including the following:
1265:
If not, then these SIX references amount IMO to exactly squat.
2128:
Discussion continued from few paragraphs above < < <
296:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
1401:. Now why should the article be in jeopardy of deletion? —
970:
What the hell is your point? What are you trying to refute?
857:
http://xhamster.com/photos/view/1656994-27245364.html#imgTop
2280:
So far the vote is about 7-2 in favor of delete or merge.
1688:
So please don't offer that one as establishing notability.
1340:
You can't just push your own theory of Notability such as "
1615:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 11
1546:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10
1517:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 9
696:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 2
2183:
PLUS non-notable TV preacher EQUALS non-notable subject.
2099:
some salacious allegations by a woman named Marie Claire
1342:
my are, as an aggregate, evidence of her notability...
125:
121:
117:
2031:
Sorry, I just wanted to hold this open while we could
189:
1375:, this article reads like the woman without a past.
1609:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
1540:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
1511:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
690:
This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
203:
988:, I support that move. My close reading today of
539:That would be I. Please note that I added it back
316:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
52:; redirecting to the article on her late husband
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2369:). No further edits should be made to this page.
984:If by tempted to "redirect" you mean to merge,
2278:This AfD so far, and request for further inut
8:
1957:partly because of the verification problems.
334:Note: This debate has been included in the
314:Note: This debate has been included in the
294:Note: This debate has been included in the
2254:turn into a redirect and fully protect this
2033:do a bit more research before taking action
408:Can you link some of them here for review?
336:list of People-related deletion discussions
333:
313:
293:
1762:Discussion continued below < < <
1054:Talk:Melissa Scott (pastor)#Book sources
1433:left out of his policy quote above is "
382:"Clearly it should be scrubbed to meet
2223:Libel or not, this article is still a
1990:comment added 17:32, 11 February 2014
1676:The NYT obit's total mention of MS: "
787:WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1879:@Hoary: In my view the Faith Center
1678:He is survived by his wife, Melissa.
1152:I'd also like to point out that the
994:lack of at least one reliable source
2161:Well, what do other editors think?
24:
1349:Just saying it 'don't make it so.
1367:WP:Notability also specifies, "
515:(2--bottom 3 lines of section)
511:(1--bottom 2 lines of section)
1917:Pornographic actors and models
1790:offers her in not 24 but just
588:purposes. Prior discussion at
1:
2348:21:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
2322:18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
2271:01:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
2237:22:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
2215:19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
2193:18:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
2115:22:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
2088:20:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
2045:20:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
2025:20:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1969:16:44, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1932:18:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1907:14:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1875:12:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1861:09:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1844:07:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1830:22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1808:13:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1755:01:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
1698:08:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1664:07:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1629:01:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
1613:). I have transcluded it to
1599:23:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
1584:23:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
1560:03:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
1544:). I have transcluded it to
1515:). I have transcluded it to
1458:19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
1425:16:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
1411:15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
694:). I have transcluded it to
78:19:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
68:visible in the page history.
1774:. This person is pastor at "
1531:08:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
1503:14:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
1385:19:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
1331:17:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
1303:07:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
1284:19:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
1212:15:18, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
1202:notability in light of BLP.
1181:19:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
1167:03:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
1148:02:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
1133:22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
1118:22:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
1087:21:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
1073:07:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
1029:22:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
1010:21:51, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
980:20:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
966:14:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
952:11:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
933:00:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
907:14:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
890:12:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
874:11:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
850:13:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
827:07:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
803:06:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
777:04:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
754:03:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
736:00:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
710:14:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
682:07:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
657:20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
620:18:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
606:07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
576:19:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
557:07:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
527:23:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
501:21:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
479:20:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
463:21:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
449:20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
435:20:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
418:19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
396:07:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
372:19:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
348:18:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
328:18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
308:18:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
287:18:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
266:07:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
256:. There's a big difference.
236:17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
2386:
489:New York Times v. Sullivan
2358:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
914:Please READ the article
2310:Non-notable porn model
2290:short and easy reading
2181:Non-notable porn model
2076:Melissa Scott (writer)
1572:non-notable porn model
1373:The Man Without a Past
92:Melissa Scott (pastor)
84:Melissa Scott (pastor)
1489:without resorting to
1446:WP:Gaming the system
1017:WP:Gaming the system
1776:Faith Center Church
590:the BLP-noticeboard
1719:The New York Times
1645:The New York Times
1607:Automated comment:
1538:Automated comment:
1509:Automated comment:
990:WP:Deletion policy
688:Automated comment:
48:The result was
1714:Shopper's Gazette
1631:
1562:
1533:
1491:original research
864:comment added by
789:states in part, "
712:
350:
330:
310:
75:
2377:
2360:
1991:
1966:
1961:
1641:
1621:
1605:
1552:
1536:
1523:
1507:
876:
720:affaritaliani.it
702:
686:
208:
207:
193:
145:
133:
115:
73:
34:
2385:
2384:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2367:deletion review
2356:
2258:the 2007 DELREV
2250:delete and salt
2053:I'm going with
1985:
1964:
1959:
1635:
1627:
1619:
1591:Thargor Orlando
1558:
1550:
1529:
1521:
1417:Thargor Orlando
1312:source for the
1204:Thargor Orlando
1056:, I have added
859:
842:Thargor Orlando
769:Unscintillating
728:Unscintillating
708:
700:
471:Thargor Orlando
410:Thargor Orlando
228:Thargor Orlando
150:
141:
106:
90:
87:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2383:
2381:
2372:
2371:
2351:
2350:
2276:
2274:
2273:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2177:
2173:
2162:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2145:
2142:
2130:
2129:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2091:
2090:
2070:New York Times
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2028:
2027:
2012:
1993:
1992:
1971:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1920:
1811:
1810:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1723:Stephen Barber
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1674:
1670:
1633:
1632:
1625:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1564:
1563:
1556:
1534:
1527:
1505:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1442:
1438:
1388:
1387:
1365:
1361:
1352:
1338:
1306:
1305:
1287:
1286:
1271:
1267:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1240:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1229:clarification.
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
997:
920:
917:
853:
852:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
805:
780:
779:
759:
758:
757:
756:
713:
706:
684:
659:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
561:
560:
559:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
467:
466:
465:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
375:
374:
352:
351:
331:
311:
290:
289:
271:
270:
269:
268:
211:
210:
147:
86:
81:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2382:
2370:
2368:
2364:
2359:
2353:
2352:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2301:
2297:
2295:
2291:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2272:
2268:
2264:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2248:. Either (A)
2247:
2244:
2243:
2238:
2234:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2216:
2212:
2208:
2207:Paul McDonald
2204:
2199:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2171:
2167:
2163:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2146:
2143:
2140:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2124:
2123:
2116:
2112:
2108:
2104:
2100:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2089:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2072:
2071:
2066:
2065:
2064:Free Republic
2060:
2056:
2052:
2051:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2029:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2009:
2005:
2001:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1989:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1972:
1970:
1967:
1962:
1956:
1952:
1949:
1948:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1891:Melissa Scott
1887:
1885:
1882:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1786:, excellent.
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1770:
1769:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1743:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1685:
1679:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1647:
1646:
1639:
1630:
1624:
1622:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1555:
1553:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1532:
1526:
1524:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1481:
1480:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1353:
1350:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1268:
1266:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
998:
995:
991:
987:
983:
982:
981:
977:
973:
969:
968:
967:
963:
959:
958:Paul McDonald
955:
954:
953:
949:
945:
941:
936:
935:
934:
930:
926:
921:
918:
915:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
899:Paul McDonald
896:
893:
892:
891:
887:
883:
879:
878:
877:
875:
871:
867:
866:97.94.168.143
863:
858:
851:
847:
843:
838:
837:
828:
824:
820:
815:
811:
806:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
781:
778:
774:
770:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
724:
721:
717:
714:
711:
705:
703:
697:
693:
689:
685:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
660:
658:
654:
650:
645:
641:
638:
634:
630:
627:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
507:Paul McDonald
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
485:Public figure
482:
481:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:Paul McDonald
452:
451:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
432:
428:
427:Paul McDonald
424:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
404:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
373:
369:
365:
364:Paul McDonald
361:
357:
354:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
292:
291:
288:
284:
280:
276:
273:
272:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
216:
206:
202:
199:
196:
192:
188:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
156:
153:
152:Find sources:
148:
144:
140:
137:
131:
127:
123:
119:
114:
110:
105:
101:
97:
93:
89:
88:
85:
82:
80:
79:
76:
71:
65:
61:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2357:
2354:
2335:
2327:
2305:
2304:
2299:
2298:
2289:
2285:
2277:
2275:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2197:
2103:Marie Claire
2098:
2068:
2062:
2054:
2007:
2004:WP:Consensus
1973:
1950:
1913:Joefromrandb
1880:
1867:Joefromrandb
1849:Joefromrandb
1836:Joefromrandb
1795:
1791:
1783:
1771:
1741:
1726:
1718:
1713:
1683:
1681:
1677:
1649:
1643:
1634:
1606:
1567:
1537:
1508:
1482:
1434:
1368:
1357:Joefromrandb
1348:
1345:
1341:
1313:
1295:Joefromrandb
1264:
1260:
1153:
1125:Joefromrandb
1104:
1100:
1079:Joefromrandb
1060:
1057:
1049:
986:Joefromrandb
972:Joefromrandb
944:Joefromrandb
940:no consensus
939:
913:
882:Joefromrandb
860:— Preceding
854:
819:Joefromrandb
809:
790:
746:Joefromrandb
715:
687:
674:Joefromrandb
661:
643:
632:
628:
598:Joefromrandb
563:
549:Joefromrandb
540:
388:Joefromrandb
355:
274:
258:Joefromrandb
219:Marie Claire
218:
212:
200:
194:
186:
179:
173:
167:
161:
151:
138:
66:
62:
58:Marie Claire
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1986:—Preceding
1742:Holy Sinner
1441:notability.
1319:objectively
1105:Holy Sinner
742:WP:PRESERVE
644:Marie Clare
177:free images
2340:Stepojevac
2332:Gene Scott
2225:total mess
2203:WP:KOOLAID
1960:Blethering
1895:Gene Scott
1796:in English
1651:D Magazine
1620:cyberbot I
1551:cyberbot I
1522:cyberbot I
1314:notability
895:WP:SOFIXIT
701:cyberbot I
666:Gene Scott
637:Gene Scott
594:Gene Scott
423:Here's one
215:Gene Scott
54:Gene Scott
2363:talk page
2282:Consensus
2246:Eliminate
2061:from the
1899:Arxiloxos
1788:This page
1772:Questions
1673:excluded?
1101:Nightfall
649:Arxiloxos
629:Weak keep
340:• Gene93k
320:• Gene93k
300:• Gene93k
226:in 2006.
70:Sjakkalle
37:talk page
2365:or in a
2314:Paavo273
2185:Paavo273
2017:Paavo273
1924:Paavo273
1883:notable,
1822:Paavo273
1690:Paavo273
1576:Paavo273
1568:Question
1487:verified
1450:Paavo273
1395:WP:BASIC
1377:Paavo273
1360:article.
1276:Paavo273
1224:I think
1173:Paavo273
1021:Paavo273
1002:Paavo273
925:Paavo273
862:unsigned
795:Paavo273
612:Paavo273
568:Paavo273
519:Paavo273
493:Paavo273
441:Paavo273
279:Paavo273
250:WP:SYNTH
136:View log
74:(Check!)
39:or in a
2306:QUERY 2
2300:QUERY 1
2252:or (B)
2229:Bearian
2198:Comment
2139:Brianhe
2080:Bearian
2037:Bearian
2000:Bearian
1988:undated
1978:Bearian
1974:Comment
1784:mastery
1759:* : -->
1747:Brianhe
1656:Brianhe
1431:Brianhe
1403:Brianhe
1323:Brianhe
1270:MC2009.
1159:Brianhe
1140:Brianhe
1110:Brianhe
1065:Brianhe
716:Comment
707:Offline
564:Delete
545:WP:BLPN
487:(as in
275:Comment
183:WP refs
171:scholar
109:protect
104:history
2336:Delete
2176:point?
2055:delete
1955:WP:GNG
1951:Delete
1626:Online
1611:step 3
1557:Online
1542:step 3
1528:Online
1513:step 3
1483:Delete
1399:WP:BIO
1344:" OR "
1052:. At
814:WP:BLP
692:step 3
670:WP:BLP
586:WP:BLP
384:WP:BLP
360:WP:BLP
254:WP:BLP
252:; not
246:WP:NOR
155:Google
113:delete
50:delete
2328:Merge
2263:Hoary
2127:: -->
2126:: -->
2125:: -->
2107:Hoary
2011:here.
1853:Hoary
1818:Hoary
1800:Hoary
1792:three
1761:: -->
1760:: -->
1364:time.
1099:Both
1058:three
662:Merge
633:merge
582:WP:RS
541:after
198:JSTOR
159:books
143:Stats
130:views
122:watch
118:links
16:<
2344:talk
2334:or *
2318:talk
2294:HERE
2267:talk
2233:talk
2211:talk
2189:talk
2168:and
2111:talk
2084:talk
2059:blog
2041:talk
2021:talk
1982:talk
1965:Scot
1928:talk
1903:talk
1871:talk
1857:talk
1840:talk
1826:talk
1804:talk
1780:says
1751:talk
1694:talk
1660:talk
1654:. —
1648:and
1617:. —
1595:talk
1580:talk
1548:. —
1519:. —
1499:talk
1495:Tarc
1454:talk
1421:talk
1407:talk
1381:talk
1327:talk
1299:talk
1280:talk
1208:talk
1177:talk
1163:talk
1154:five
1144:talk
1129:talk
1114:talk
1103:and
1083:talk
1069:talk
1061:four
1050:Keep
1025:talk
1006:talk
976:talk
962:talk
948:talk
929:talk
903:talk
886:talk
870:talk
846:talk
823:talk
799:talk
773:talk
750:talk
732:talk
698:. —
678:talk
653:talk
616:talk
602:talk
584:for
572:talk
553:talk
523:talk
513:and
497:talk
475:talk
459:talk
445:talk
431:talk
414:talk
392:talk
368:talk
356:Keep
344:talk
324:talk
304:talk
283:talk
262:talk
248:and
232:talk
191:FENS
165:news
126:logs
100:talk
96:edit
2330:to
2296:.
1897:.--
1893:to
1727:may
810:one
664:to
635:to
631:or
505:Hi
205:TWL
134:– (
2346:)
2320:)
2269:)
2235:)
2227:.
2213:)
2191:)
2113:)
2086:)
2078:.
2043:)
2035:.
2023:)
1984:)
1930:)
1905:)
1881:is
1873:)
1859:)
1842:)
1828:)
1806:)
1753:)
1696:)
1686:."
1662:)
1640:)
1597:)
1582:)
1501:)
1456:)
1423:)
1409:)
1383:)
1329:)
1301:)
1282:)
1226:TO
1210:)
1179:)
1165:)
1146:)
1131:)
1116:)
1085:)
1071:)
1027:)
1008:)
978:)
964:)
950:)
931:)
905:)
888:)
872:)
848:)
825:)
801:)
775:)
752:)
734:)
680:)
655:)
647:--
618:)
604:)
574:)
555:)
543:a
525:)
499:)
477:)
461:)
447:)
433:)
416:)
394:)
370:)
346:)
338:.
326:)
318:.
306:)
298:.
285:)
264:)
234:)
185:)
128:|
124:|
120:|
116:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
2342:(
2316:(
2265:(
2231:(
2209:(
2187:(
2141::
2137:@
2109:(
2082:(
2039:(
2019:(
1998:@
1980:(
1926:(
1919:.
1911:@
1901:(
1869:(
1855:(
1838:(
1824:(
1816:@
1802:(
1749:(
1692:(
1682:"
1658:(
1638:←
1636:(
1593:(
1578:(
1497:(
1452:(
1437:"
1419:(
1405:(
1379:(
1325:(
1297:(
1278:(
1206:(
1175:(
1161:(
1142:(
1127:(
1112:(
1081:(
1067:(
1023:(
1004:(
974:(
960:(
946:(
927:(
916:.
901:(
884:(
868:(
844:(
821:(
797:(
771:(
748:(
730:(
676:(
651:(
614:(
600:(
570:(
551:(
521:(
495:(
473:(
457:(
443:(
429:(
412:(
390:(
366:(
342:(
322:(
302:(
281:(
260:(
230:(
209:)
201:·
195:·
187:·
180:·
174:·
168:·
162:·
157:(
149:(
146:)
139:·
132:)
94:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.