941:. That article doesn't mention the book, but the history is similar enough it seems like it could be from the book; on the other hand the paper also mentioned some other people who said they'd heard the stories. One of the papers asked the Lakewood Town Manager and the other paper spoke with the Kirtland Fire Chief who said he'd heard the stories when he was a teenager. If those are valid interviews -if those same interviewees are not named in the books, then that makes those newspaper stories independent and reliable for keeping the article. If it turns out that the books name the same individuals making the reports as the in the newspaper articles, then that might show that the sources are not independent. As far as I can tell so far, they seem independent, so I'll leave my "keep" comment. I'm open to changing that though, if more info is provided showing the sources are not independent. --
1262:
Jackson and the
Beatles would squeeze through, and so would the War on Terror, but practically no American politician below the level of president would. In fact, using absolute notability, most Americans states would not be notable enough for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Melon heads are notable on the grounds that they have good coverage in the media and in urban myth circles. The myth has propagated and survived without a factual event behind it and it has spawned a pop culture belief of its own that exists independently of other urban myths (notability is its own, rather than one which is inherited from another myth). Take this myth and put it in its native environment, and it is notable. Therefore it is notable overall.
1174:
importance. It is followed by fewer that 50% of
America's 300+ million population who in turn make up a fraction of the worlds 6+ billion population. The vast majority of international TV stations don't cover it, the vast majority of the world's population don't watch it. 9/10 people in the world proably couldn't even tell you which month the Superbowl was in, let alone who won it. Football barely even makes the headlines outside of the sports pages and it hasn't changed the world any. Therefore under your notability criteria all football entries including players, etc, would be removed from Knowledge (XXG). Things can be notable and specialist at the same time. -
603:, for now. We currently have 2 articles from the same publication (The Plain Dealer), Weird Michigan/US (and articles sourcing it), and the Free Times (which feels it is valid to source messageboard comments, so I'm dubious on the rest of the article). So, there's currently 1 reliable source, and 1 dubious source (unless someone can shed light on the reliability of the Sterling publications...) Policy tends to dictate "multiple" reliable sources... As I mentioned, I tend to have an inclusionist bent, but if an urban legend hasn't even caused a blip on the Snopes.com radar, then is Knowledge (XXG) really the place for it? --
696:: An existing urban legend verifiable to several distinct sources. The primary grounds for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG) are verifiability and notability. The available sources confirm both of these. The truth of the urban legend is irrelevant (most urban legends are largely, if not totally, false), what is important is that they are a part of popular culture. If you were to delete an urban legend just because it's about something made up then you might as well delete all urban legends as well as most classical myths. -
431:
turn viral. Also, I cannot even find any sources older than about 8 years, with no indication of the originator. I'm starting to suspect the story-teller from the Plain Dealer article... There's certainly a lot about these melon-heads on the web, but unfortunately, little of it's even slightly "reliable". And even less pre-dates this article... Due to the fact that there is nothing reliable, let alone from before this article's creation (nevermind the edit history...), I'm sticking to Delete... --
1250:: (restated). Regardless of whether Melon Heads are real, are folklore or are fakelore, they have clearly penetrated the popular consciousness of the region and which has survived "in the wild" for several years demonstrating that it has staying power, too. They are referenced multiple times across multiple sources which treat it as a myth or an urban legend rather than POV pushing it as being real. This checks all of the boxes for a notable and verifiable myth.
810:
is unfamiliar with the legend, I think we can safely assume that we've been had and remove at least the Ohio section. (Yes, I trust reference librarians to know of local legends; they get some mighty odd requests...) Mapsax, if the librarian confirms the myth and provides RS, can you ask her/him to point you to relevant images which could be used as fair use on
Knowledge (XXG)? I suspect that you'll have access to things we'd never see otherwise... --
255:
Connecticut and
Michigan. In the case of Connecticut, there certainly should be a bit of newsprint about it, since the story apparently dates back almost 150 years (or is it 50? The article is unclear)... And, honestly, if it's really as well-known as is claimed, I'm surprised Snopes hasn't heard of it... With more reliable sources, I'll gladly consider changing from Delete, as I tend to have a bit of an inclusionist bent... --
989:. The author (Ryan Orvis) said on the second page that he "went to the library", and and since the cite appears to be recent, any research that he did probably would be the same that I would do on Monday, when the reference librarian today stated that the employee who would know the most about it would be in. I think that we have enough substance now! Anyone with more editing experience than I have want to go to it? Â :-)
742:
it is as a web hoax. A local paper saying that it's fake would be sufficient to rate at least a reference that people thought that it was fake in the entry, and if it provided evidence to back it then I'd have no problem with the entry saying that it was a fake myth. My point however remains that if its a genuine myth then it's notable because of its coverage, and if its a fake myth it's still notable for the same reasons.
341:(edit conflict) Not to be difficult, but are you able to find anything else substantial? A sentence in a newspaper article which appears to be lacking in verification of the legends they're discussing isn't really much "proof" of anything, other than someone apparently is paid to tell the story. It also seems to contradict the Knowledge (XXG) article slightly... Still looking for a reliable source, myself... --
290:
1031:. The article was originally highly unsourced, sloppy, full of apocrypha, and tended to refer to unsubstantiated urban legends as if they were fact or rumor. Now it has photographs, several reliable sources, is much better-organized, and is generally neat. In short, it's gone from being completely unencyclopedic to marginally encyclopedic, all thanks to this AfD. Thanks,
718:
publish it, and someone else could edit it into the Wiki article on Greek mythology, but that wouldn't make it a real Greek myth. So far, all but one of the
Michigan references are sketchy at best, and all of the Ohio Melon heads references are equally sketchy. I'd like the legend to have a place here; its a fun story, but we
985:. The bad news: The four pages covering the subject look to lift text directly from the websites cited at the top of this article (what a surprise to see my own words, since I contributed to Forgotten Ohio). The good news: One of the sources, not listed above, is entitled "Solving the Melon Head Mystery", and is available
908:. I'm not digging deeper into this, but with finding those print-published non-web sources in just a few minutes, I'm convinced this is not a hoax and is WP:N & WP:V enough to keep the article. (If any editors of the article are reading this, you're welcome to make use of these references to improve the page.) --
1011:
Thanks for all the great research & debate that went into this discussion. After a recent negative experience with
Knowledge (XXG), all of this makes me feel right at home & hopeful about this medium :) As for the Melon heads, I no longer object to the article itself; my only beef (notability
776:
I don't know if I agree with that. Even fakelore still needs to meet Wiki notability criterion, and I'm not sure that the Ohio Melon heads quite make it there. They may get there. . .in a few more years of viral transimission via the internet, an article about them might meet the notability criterion
1255:
On the Hoax issue, it is actually irrelevant whether or not this started out as folklore or fakelore so long as any claims about its status are addressed using verifiable sources. Both folklore and fakelore are equally acceptable on
Knowledge (XXG) so long as notability is demonstrated, which it has
809:
to visit the local libraries. Even if Mapsax is told by the reference librarian, "Hah! I know the legend; it was brought here in 19XX by XYZ. Here's all of the documentation I have," there's still notability, as well as the sources likely being reliable. On the other hand, if the reference librarian
741:
is just as valid on
Knowledge (XXG) as ]. If this is a hoax, a fake urban myth, then it appears to hav been widely distributed enough to be notable in itself and therefore sufficiently notable to be included. In this case, the only point of contention would be the entries framing. You'd need to WP:V
1267:
On the reliability issue of sources, I seriously have to ask why people are raising the red flag here? This is a myth being treated as a myth, there are no extraordinary claims being made so no extraordinary proof is required. A source simply needs to be reliable enough to report on the contents of
1224:
Why would you even consider deleting this article? The legend is found in many books in including "Weird
Michigan" and there's even several local newspaper articles (at least in Michigan) about the story. Since Knowledge (XXG) is one of the biggest resources for information online, why not keep the
1261:
On notability. Notability is relative, not absolute. If notability were absolute then practically nothing would be notable. There are 6+ billion people on this planet and asking for something to be notable to more than a handful of them (absolute notability) is frankly asking rather a lot. Micheal
1148:
I agree that the currently policies are a little vague, but this is better than policies that are so rigid that you can't apply common sense. I am probably 80% on the delete vote of AFDs it seems, but if something is truly on the borderline (ie: not spam/vanity/hoax), I think it is better to keep
133:
If you are going to delete the melonhead article you may as well delete bigfoot, lochness monster, chupacabra, aliens. Just because it is not a world renowned myth doesn't make it less important or relevant. Most
Ohioans are very familiar with this story and it would be shame to railroad it off of
755:
At the end of the day, and in the very best of situations, this would still be an urban myth and nothing more. It doesn't need peer review reliability. Only a couple of sources that are sufficiently reliable enough to report on the contents of the myths, and pretty much any well urban legend book
430:
I had noted that, as well as plenty of overt vandalism on the article. Also, in all of the unreliable information I'm finding, supposedly this Dr. Crowe operated simultaneously in Michigan and Ohio. I find this doubtful, and in line with an internet-legend which people are trying their hardest to
312:
Hmmm. ..but the article you mention is about a woman gives "Ghost walks," not about the actual urban legend. Did she acquire her information from the web as a way to bolster her program, or is she retelling an actual urban legend (did the chicken come before the egg?) Once again, reliability is a
271:
I don't have a problem citing a referenceable urban legend, no matter how oddball. However, unreliable internet sources about an alleged urban legend do not constitute an actual urban legend; they constitute an internet hoax that suggests an urban legend. There may be a root truth to the internet
717:
of the sources that report the urban legend. I.e., is it an urban legened, or is it something invented by internet bloggers and a single publisher? Is it really an urban legend, and to what extent? For instance, using your example above, I could invent a bogus Greek myth, paste it on the net or
1173:
DGG, you do realize that what you say would effectively mean the end of most sports and music related entries and almost all TV related entries. Let me give you a case study: Football (US football, not soccer or rugby football). This sport is basically a US only game with no real international
497:
I live within 10 minutes of Kirtland, Ohio and we, as teenagers, did go melonhead hunting in the late 70's. I know teenagers still continue to this day, so it is an urban legend. But, the information I found on Knowledge (XXG) about Dr. Crow is new to me . . . we never had this much detail!
254:
criteria. A cursory bit of research on the book they provide is inconclusive as to the reliability of it as a source. And if this is a widespread legend, it must be reported in more than the local alternative rag. I'm positive that Ohio has a large-ish newspaper in that general area, as do
616:
article does contain some original material. I don't think we should worry too much about Snopes; there are any number of reasons why they haven't talked about the legend (it's too local in scope; nobody really takes it seriously enough for Snopes to research it; etc.) As for the Sterling
665:
The Chardon, Ohio, library is fairly close to me, so within the week, I'll check with reference librarians to see if there are any published sources mentioning melonheads, including those not of a regional nature. At the very least, the text of this article should be merged into
1268:
the myth, not to verify the myth as being true to science or history. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof but absurd claims require only proof that an absurd claim was made because they are only verifying that the claim was made, not that the claim is true.
777:
for a Melonhead article (or mention in an article) about internet hoxes or internet fakelore. But I'm not sure that Knowledge (XXG) should be one of the primary transmitters of marginal (at best) fakelore. The Melonheads should arrive at their own notability. --
933:
newspaper article in full, and it did seem like most of the info was from the book series; but there were also a few names of people relating stories that weren't from the book; it's hard to tell though. I searched a bit more and found another article, in the
644:
RE the Free Times, I think it's fair to cite a message board in that context. The author is just giving an example of the kinds of stories that are going around. And he's not trying to present the stories as true; he clearly refers to it as a "myth".
272:
stuff, but the references aren't strong enough to back it up. Quite a bit of the information in the article isn't even backed up by the links and single reference. Another point: might be worthwhile to give the article history some scrutiny. --
835:, a little down the Lake Michigan shore. That reference, however, turns up nothing on the internet, and, both from memory and research today, locals seem not to agree even on the location, citing two cemeteries/churches with similar names,
625:
series, and am interested in these kinds of stories in general. I'll admit that the editors do take a light-hearted approach to their subjects, and aren't concerned with debunking the stories, but I've never known them to completely
416:
To be a bit more plain about my remarks RE: the article's history; you'll find that the article has attracted quite a bit of attention from unreg. users, some of whom have a history of vandalism or quasi-vandalism--
296:. (I can access the whole article on Newsbank. It's just a sentence – "She will share the legend of the 'melonheads' that haunt Wisner Rd in Kirtland." – but it proves that it's an actual piece of Ohio folklore.)
165:
562:
unless the references can be upgraded into something reliable. Alternately, you could just mention something about the original Michigan urban legends spreading via the Internet and Sterling Publications books.
452:, but it also contains some original material. One of the locals quoted in the article notes that, in his day, the kids used to refer to the Melon Heads as "wobble heads"... So, that's something to search for.
801:
You'll note that most complaints (at least mine...) haven't been on the notability of legends; solely how reliable the sources are, and general notability of this particular legend. I'm upgrading to
470:
That's more promising; seems marginally notable anyway. If the bunk and vandal-fiction is edited out of the article, there just might be a full paragraph based on what is actually sourceable.--
1203:. I think that its inclusion in the book should establish it as a real urban legend, not an internet hoax that was recently invented. BTW, here is the google books result, where the pages in
581:
article noting that the Ohio stories are popular on the Internet. So regardless of whether it's all a "fake" urban legend or a real one, we do have a reliable source saying that the stories
1086:
The article is now fully cited by sources that easily meet wp:rs. I still think it sounds pretty stupid, but at my age, lots of notable things sound pretty stupid. Especially rap ;)
1273:
Maybe if this was being put forward as science it would need a better source, but a myth being treated as a myth require only sources that are WP:RS as far as myths are concerned. -
112:
827:
capital of Ohio, and it just got hit), but I'll do my best. Full disclosure: I became interested in the legend in Ohio when I heard it, having just heard about it in Michigan --
166:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:oZhsre-pE14J:www.forgottenoh.com/Counties/Lake/melonheads.html+site:www.forgottenoh.com+melon+heads&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
967:, since I can't get a preview of the Melon Heads section with Google Books (but if I'm near a Barnes and Noble, I can probably check, because they always carry these titles).
674:
Kirtland, Ohio, since the cemetery in question is in Chardon Township), although that would leave the text the legend as heard in other locations orphaned. As of now:
354:
The only other things I've found so far are reviews of the Weird US books, which list the Melonhead stories as one of the highlights. I'm still digging around, though.
900:
897:
903:
896:. The article needs work, but the topic is notable and verifiable. The urban legend is described in several of the "Weird US" series of books:
1012:& reliability of sources) is with the Ohio melonheads section. That said, I rest my case: let community concensus move the article forward.--
667:
929:- I was asked by an editor to review the sources a bit more, because all three of the books found are by the same publisher. So I read the
1232:
1210:
143:
785:) 21:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC) P.S. And again, I don't know that there are even a "couple of sources that are sufficiently reliable." --
1065:
17:
289:
Well, no, this isn't an internet hoax pretending to be an urban legend. For one thing, the Melon Heads are briefly mentioned in
134:
wiki. It is not a hoax entry, it is a vital part of Northeast Ohio's mythical heritage. Feel free to email your questions. per
85:
80:
89:
558:
Still, I don't know about keeping the Kirtland Ohio section. The references for that section are way too sketchy. Revise to
543:
based on your edits. However, the article should probably be locked down or closely monitored: it's a real kaka magnet.--
1111:
sometimes covers absolute local trivia, but I dont see why this implies we should be follow every one of their errors.
72:
1297:
1103:
Keeping this seems to be an excellent indication of the nonsensical nature of our present notability rules. perhaps we
36:
221:
of the urban legend. And we can have articles about urban legends, as long as they're clearly presented as such.
48:. Stronger, multiple sources were introduced during AfD, although it still appears to be a magnet for vandalism.
1296:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
939:
832:
405:
189:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1236:
1214:
147:
1278:
1179:
761:
701:
1228:
139:
1070:
1017:
864:
790:
782:
727:
568:
548:
509:
475:
421:
318:
277:
124:
840:
490:
1282:
1240:
1218:
1183:
1158:
1140:
1122:
1107:
redefine N as really meaning actual importance, and then , field by field, define importance. Even the
1095:
1075:
1044:
1021:
998:
976:
950:
917:
880:
814:
794:
765:
731:
705:
687:
654:
639:
607:
594:
572:
552:
527:
513:
494:
479:
461:
435:
425:
409:
376:
363:
345:
336:
322:
305:
281:
259:
230:
208:
193:
151:
128:
54:
157:
It's a local urban legend. I think it's fake, but it is somewhat important. Here's a few links on it.
1032:
1013:
946:
913:
786:
778:
723:
564:
544:
505:
471:
417:
397:
314:
273:
120:
906:
441:
811:
604:
486:
432:
401:
373:
342:
256:
202:
185:
170:
1274:
1175:
1154:
1136:
1091:
972:
868:
757:
697:
650:
635:
590:
523:
457:
359:
332:
301:
226:
369:
180:
1060:
1040:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
247:
994:
876:
848:
824:
683:
76:
49:
893:
836:
942:
909:
251:
119:
Hoax article? Links and one reference all seem highly questionable. Cool story, though.
1208:
1131:, it does have nationwide recognition among those interested in these kinds of things.
713:
Contention isn't with the existence or hokey source of the urban legend, it's with the
1150:
1132:
1118:
1087:
968:
820:
646:
631:
586:
519:
453:
355:
328:
297:
243:
222:
585:
and are circulating online. I think that should be good enough to save the article.
1036:
860:
106:
1054:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
990:
872:
844:
806:
679:
135:
68:
60:
1199:
This is pretty common in local paranormal circles, which is how it wound up in
722:
an encyclopedia. . .and we need good sources to maintain credibility as one. --
1149:
than delete. It is a 'complete' vs. 'overly broad' debate issue, I suppose.
986:
175:
1113:
738:
955:
The Lakewood Town Manager and the Kirtland Fire Chief are not named in
160:
863:, but refers to yet another location, the shoreline dunes between
518:
I chopped out a lot of the BS, and included some newspaper refs.
1290:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1225:
stories on here for others to see? It just doesn't make sense.
617:
Publications, I think they should be sufficient to document the
171:
http://www.geocities.com/son_of_pauly/melonheads/melonhead.html
181:
http://creepycleveland.blogspot.com/search/label/melonheads
327:
Honestly? I don't know. I'll keep looking around, though.
368:
The most substantial that I've found so far, myself, is
246:, in principle. However, the article still has to meet
102:
98:
94:
905:... and here's a story about it in a local newspaper:
201:
None of those seems to be a reliable source, however.
1059:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1256:been via the array of different sources available.
853:Edit, put here to keep relevant comments together
1300:). No further edits should be made to this page.
805:, based on the latest changes, and the offer by
504:Yes, it's highly educational and encyclopedic--
370:this set of posts to the Creepy Cleveland blog
8:
859:an instance of this in Berrien cited online
621:of the myth. I own a couple books in the
217:I think they're enough to establish the
176:http://www.weirdus.com/stories/OH04.asp
831:in the Holland area, but in southeast
668:Chardon Township, Geauga County, Ohio
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
843:. Just to muddy things up. Â :-)
372:. Certainly not RS material... --
161:http://deadohio.com/MelonHeads.htm
24:
819:The research is held up a bit (
737:This actually works both ways.
851:) 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
1:
823:happens to be the unofficial
688:22:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
655:22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
640:22:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
608:21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
595:20:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
573:17:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
553:13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
528:06:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
514:05:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
495:05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
480:01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
462:01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
436:01:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
426:01:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
410:00:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
377:01:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
364:00:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
346:00:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
337:00:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
323:00:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
306:00:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
282:00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
260:00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
231:00:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
209:00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
194:00:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
152:07:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
129:23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
1283:12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
1241:23:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
1219:02:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
1184:12:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
537:Good job :) I'll upgrade to
448:. It's partially sourced to
55:00:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
1159:16:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
1141:04:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
1123:00:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
1096:00:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
1076:23:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
1045:15:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
1022:06:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
999:00:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
977:06:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
951:00:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
918:23:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
881:20:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
815:10:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
795:21:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
766:20:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
732:18:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
706:09:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
291:this 2000 article from the
1317:
963:. I'm not 100% sure about
1293:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
293:Cleveland Plain Dealer
936:Cleveland Free Times
855:It looks like there
987:here, in two pages
938:, a weekly paper:
207:and his otters •
1243:
1231:comment added by
1127:Well, because of
1078:
756:could so that. -
630:an urban legend.
154:
142:comment added by
1308:
1295:
1226:
1073:
1068:
1063:
1058:
1056:
931:Holland Sentinel
825:lake-effect snow
614:Holland Sentinel
444:Holland Sentinel
205:
204:Ten Pound Hammer
137:
110:
92:
52:
34:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1298:deletion review
1291:
1071:
1066:
1061:
1052:
203:
83:
67:
64:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1314:
1312:
1303:
1302:
1286:
1285:
1270:
1269:
1264:
1263:
1258:
1257:
1252:
1251:
1222:
1221:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1146:Comment to DGG
1143:
1098:
1080:
1079:
1057:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1025:
1024:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
981:Got a copy of
961:Weird Michigan
921:
920:
886:
885:
884:
883:
833:Berrien County
798:
797:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
734:
691:
690:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
642:
612:Note that the
599:I maintain my
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
483:
482:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
450:Weird Michigan
413:
412:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
379:
349:
348:
309:
308:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
212:
211:
186:VinTheMetalhed
117:
116:
63:
58:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1313:
1301:
1299:
1294:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1266:
1265:
1260:
1259:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1233:75.40.250.194
1230:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1211:69.221.152.25
1209:
1207:are visible:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1194:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1115:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1064:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1009:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
980:
979:
978:
975:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
937:
932:
928:
925:
924:
923:
922:
919:
915:
911:
907:
904:
901:
898:
895:
891:
888:
887:
882:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
813:
808:
804:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
775:
774:
767:
763:
759:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
740:
736:
735:
733:
729:
725:
721:
716:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
703:
699:
695:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
669:
664:
656:
653:
652:
648:
643:
641:
638:
637:
633:
629:
624:
620:
615:
611:
610:
609:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:I did find a
576:
575:
574:
570:
566:
561:
557:
556:
555:
554:
550:
546:
542:
541:
529:
526:
525:
521:
517:
516:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
496:
492:
488:
481:
477:
473:
469:
463:
460:
459:
455:
451:
447:
445:
439:
438:
437:
434:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
415:
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
391:
378:
375:
371:
367:
366:
365:
362:
361:
357:
353:
352:
351:
350:
347:
344:
340:
339:
338:
335:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
320:
316:
313:problem. ..--
311:
310:
307:
304:
303:
299:
295:
294:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
261:
258:
253:
249:
245:
242:I agree with
241:
239:
234:
233:
232:
229:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
214:
213:
210:
206:
200:
199:
198:
197:
196:
195:
191:
187:
183:
182:
178:
177:
173:
172:
168:
167:
163:
162:
158:
155:
153:
149:
145:
144:24.166.38.220
141:
136:
131:
130:
126:
122:
114:
108:
104:
100:
96:
91:
87:
82:
78:
74:
70:
66:
65:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1292:
1289:
1247:
1223:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1145:
1135:
1128:
1112:
1109:Plain Dealer
1108:
1104:
1100:
1083:
1053:
1028:
982:
971:
964:
960:
956:
935:
930:
926:
889:
865:Stevensville
856:
852:
828:
802:
719:
714:
693:
692:
675:
671:
649:
634:
627:
622:
618:
613:
600:
589:
582:
579:Plain Dealer
578:
559:
539:
538:
536:
522:
484:
456:
449:
443:
393:
358:
331:
300:
292:
270:
237:
235:
225:
218:
184:
179:
174:
169:
164:
159:
156:
132:
118:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1275:perfectblue
1227:—Preceding
1176:perfectblue
758:perfectblue
715:reliability
698:perfectblue
601:weak delete
560:Weak Delete
440:I did find
138:—Preceding
69:Melon heads
61:Melon heads
51:David Fuchs
1205:Weird U.S.
1201:Weird U.S.
1033:Pgagnon999
1014:Pgagnon999
983:Weird Ohio
965:Weird Ohio
943:Jack-A-Roe
910:Jack-A-Roe
787:Pgagnon999
779:Pgagnon999
724:Pgagnon999
565:Pgagnon999
545:Pgagnon999
506:Pgagnon999
472:Pgagnon999
418:Pgagnon999
398:Pgagnon999
315:Pgagnon999
274:Pgagnon999
121:Pgagnon999
927:Follow-up
803:weak keep
676:weak keep
628:fabricate
619:existence
540:Weak Keep
219:existence
1229:unsigned
1151:Pharmboy
1133:Zagalejo
1129:Weird US
1088:Pharmboy
969:Zagalejo
957:Weird US
869:Bridgman
841:this one
837:this one
812:Lewellyn
739:Fakelore
647:Zagalejo
632:Zagalejo
623:Weird...
605:Lewellyn
587:Zagalejo
520:Zagalejo
487:Janeyvon
454:Zagalejo
433:Lewellyn
374:Lewellyn
356:Zagalejo
343:Lewellyn
329:Zagalejo
298:Zagalejo
257:Lewellyn
244:Zagalejo
223:Zagalejo
140:unsigned
113:View log
1101:comment
1062:Phoenix
1037:Banazir
821:Chardon
446:article
402:Ford MF
248:WP:NOTE
86:protect
81:history
1105:should
1035:! --
991:Mapsax
894:WP:HEY
873:Mapsax
845:Mapsax
807:Mapsax
680:Mapsax
394:Delete
238:Delete
90:delete
890:Keep.
583:exist
442:this
252:WP:RS
236:Weak
107:views
99:watch
95:links
16:<
1279:talk
1248:Kept
1237:talk
1215:talk
1197:Keep
1180:talk
1155:talk
1119:talk
1092:talk
1084:Keep
1072:wiki
1041:talk
1029:Keep
1018:talk
995:talk
947:talk
914:talk
892:per
877:talk
867:and
861:here
849:talk
839:and
791:talk
783:talk
762:talk
728:talk
702:talk
694:Keep
684:talk
569:talk
549:talk
510:talk
491:talk
476:talk
422:talk
406:talk
396:per
319:talk
278:talk
250:and
190:talk
148:talk
125:talk
103:logs
77:talk
73:edit
1137:^^^
1114:DGG
973:^^^
959:or
829:not
720:are
672:not
651:^^^
636:^^^
591:^^^
524:^^^
458:^^^
400:.
360:^^^
333:^^^
302:^^^
227:^^^
111:– (
1281:)
1239:)
1217:)
1182:)
1157:)
1121:)
1094:)
1043:)
1020:)
997:)
949:)
916:)
902:,
899:,
879:)
871:.
857:is
793:)
764:)
730:)
704:)
686:)
678:.
571:)
563:--
551:)
512:)
493:)
485:--
478:)
424:)
408:)
321:)
280:)
192:)
150:)
127:)
105:|
101:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
79:|
75:|
1277:(
1235:(
1213:(
1178:(
1153:(
1117:(
1090:(
1067:-
1039:(
1016:(
993:(
945:(
912:(
875:(
847:(
789:(
781:(
760:(
726:(
700:(
682:(
670:(
567:(
547:(
508:(
489:(
474:(
420:(
404:(
317:(
276:(
240:.
188:(
146:(
123:(
115:)
109:)
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.