1213:- The article fails the basic requirements of WP:BIO. Though there is coverage of Gitmo trials in general, there is not significant coverage of this individual himself. There is only one independent secondary source reference (the Huffington Post article) that says anything more about him than simply his name, but he's not the focus of the article. The majority of references listed for him are military documents that do not constitute independent secondary sources. This article clearly violates
936:
explicitly relevant to this person in this article. I actually had to read the article twice to figure out what "crime" he is accused of land himself there, because it is mentioned once in the lede, and then further relevant details about the case are buried near the bottom. In short, it looks like a GB coatrack, propped around a non-notable prisoner that has since been released from the
American jail in which he was serving. --
333:. I started looking at the articles, and found about a third were mere stubs, only a couple of sentences long, that didn't cite any references at all. Football is popular. I can see people wanting to look these guys up, even if our articles don't provide much information. I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of that material, just because I, personally, don't find it interesting myself.
971:. I've re-read the COATRACK essay just a week or so ago. It is a good essay. But I am surprised by suggestions that this article matches any of its descriptions. I would be very grateful if you would return to the COATRACK essay, and state which specific passages of that essay you think apply. I'll thank you in advance for doing that. Thanks!
1253:- I can't speak for others but the passage that I would cite would be: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted... Cover the event, not the person." Since all the information comes from the Gitmo context, I think
1392:
for the same BLP concerns that have stricken the rest of the Gitmo entries. At the heart of it all, these articles are not fundamentally biographies of people, as we have no real biographical information (aside from information about (or related to) their incarceration)). While their treatment may be
1235:
before. And I have asked for the specific passages my correspondents think they do not fulfill. But, to be very frank, my correspondents have left me sadly disappointed, by not being able to cite those passages. Perhaps you would be so kind as to make the effort to cite those passages where others
445:
says nothing about requiring media sources. I believe this article fully complies with this and other policies and guidelines. If there is a specific passage in a policy or guideline which you think the article does not comply with I would be very grateful if you would return here, and quote it. I
394:
You are perfectly free to find the material uninteresting. But I don't understand how you can say the sources aren't about Al Juhani. We have several pages of allegation memos, drafted independently, from first principles, that is about nothing but Al Juhani. And, of course, we have his testimony,
295:
I disagree with the nominator that material like this turns the wikipedia into "Amnesty
International". I already responded to this assertion yesterday, on the nominator's talk page. I pointed out that Amnesty International is a kind of advocacy group, that the material it publishes makes no attempt
996:
on the basis there will probably be sources there as well. The article is about what he did before GB, and what happened after. I don't myself see what the number of quarterbacks have to do with it, but I dont see how the number of GB prisoners has anything to do with it either. We can accommodate
693:
verifiable details about the subject beyond the legal proceedings against him. No details of his life are reported beyond the unsourced claim by counter-terrorist units of his date and place of birth. Even on nothing more than biographical grounds, it's terribly deficient. Is this really anything
503:
I don't know how many prisoners in the US criminal justice system might get temporarily lost for a day. But Al Juhani wasn't lost for a day. He was lost for two years. Not only was he lost. He was released without the OARDEC, the agency with the responsibility to authorize released, realizing he
336:
Do people read the wikipedia's material on the war on terror? Absolutely. Do readers use the wikipedia's material on individual
Guantanamo captives. Absolutely. I get questions from readers about material I have contributed on this topic, both on my talk page, and by email. I see places where
935:
Most of the article reads like an essay about how unlawful/unfair it is for prisoners to be in GB, and it has more to do with the
Tribunal process than Al Juhani. Significant sections of the lede and other paragraphs are dedicated to the questionable legal status/ethical status of GB, which isn't
461:
Please note, the DoD seems to have completely lost track of him for two years, failing to schedule a review in 2005, and then scheduling a review of his detention -- after he had already been released from detention. You do not regard this as significant? It would be really helpful to me, and I
862:
His "claim to fame" seems to be mostly that he is a prisoner in
Guantanomo, and he's hardly the only person to accomplish that. I question his worldwide and long term notability. After you remove the legal-speak and blatant POV, you would have a two line stub about a prisoner that was eventually
311:
Frankly, I am puzzled by challenges like this one. They leave me wondering whether some contributors think there should be some kind of unofficial cap on the number of bytes that can be devoted to certain topics. If the wikipedia community wants to put caps on the amount of coverage of certain
152:
Since 2006 our policy on biographies of living individuals has become a lot firmer, and we have become less tolerant of articles which purport to be biographies but are in fact about something else. I believe this is one such. I think it is fair to say that the detention of political prisoners
1458:
per DGG, Pixelface and others. Also claims there are somehow BLP issues are unconvincing; these are notable people and we have no reason to believe that any of them have a problem with having an article. Indeed, if one takes one POV more publicity makes it more likely that these people will be
729:
I'll Agree, wikipedia conventionally does not put stock in "other stuff". But, I'd really appreciate learning why you don't consider the info in the allegations memos to be verifiable? Similarly, concerning "the details of his life" -- we know a lot more about a lot of people we have articles
157:
and we should not be writing faux-biographies to cover essentially generic content such as the fact that no proper independent review process exists for detainees, if only out of practical considerations of redundancy. A quick survey leads me to conclude that most of the articles on individual
1121:
Well, just because you believe
Guantanamo is the gold medal of the carceral system doesn't mean it's true, and that isn't really a perfect analogy. But without drawing into question the notability of the prison itself, is this a case where the individual is notable outside this single prison
963:
Well, thanks for your reply. I am interested in your comments about finding the article hard to read. I'd like to take them into account when improving the article. But I think the deletion policies are pretty clear that perceptions that articles are hard to read are not normally grounds for
761:
in 2005. It is still pretty sparse, sparser than Al Juhani's. And, like the article on Al Juhani, it is useful nonetheless. Let me suggest that lacking a complete set of the details of someone's life should not be grounds to delete an article on an inventor, or an alleged Osama bin Laden
513:. How commonly are murderers or suspected terrorists accidentally released by the US Criminal Justice System? Are you trying to suggest that if it became known that if a suspected terrorist was accidentally released from the US Criminal Justice System it would not merit coverage here?
573:
really did think the policies both required media coverage, and agreed that the policies should say require media coverage, then the policy should be rewritten, so it says what everyone thinks it says. If simply everyone agreed the that the policy should say the articles should require
734:
from his CSR Tribunal lists seven allegations. I would be very grateful to read your explanation as to why these should not be considered "details of his life". Is it possible that the authors of the OARDEC memos got it wrong? Sure. But, since the wikipedia's policy on
1025:
319:
is patent nonsense. But I don't dispute that an article that cites good references could be written from a neutral point of view about it. I wouldn't dream of trying to suppress coverage of any policy-compliant material because I, personally, thought the topic was
743:, I suggest it doesn't matter if you or I have private doubts about the truth of the allegations in the memo. In particular, I suggest, being accused of being one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards alone should be meaningful enough to merit coverage here. Cheers!
531:
wikipedia article needs to have been the subject itself of reliable sources, otherwise it is non-notable. Ok it's not unverifiable, but no journalist etc has considered him personally someone to write an article about. We're not a secondary source- we're a
1027:. Controversies in international politics and diplomacy about US anti-terrorists imprisonment policies are of such an order of magnitude that, all individuals incarcerated in Guatanamao are ipso facto notable, contra NickPenguin. Also, what DGG says.--
372:
notable, but I doubt one in ten thousand could name a handful, if that many, let alone give any pertinent facts about them. Neither does this article; it's full of legal minutiae, much of it not specifically about the subject. I wouldn't call this a
719:
Almost all of which are
Knowledge (XXG) mirrors and conspiracy theorist forums, I don't see a single "Reputable source" for either of them. I'm sure with digging, one could be found - same as ones could be found for al-Juhani if we spoke Arabic.
414:
because the only coverage of him is part of lists of those in guantanamo, probably there's already a list of them, on which he is placed. He's not notable in and of himself because sources have not been articles about him alone in-depth.
84:
79:
1155:
650:. We have over 1000 articles on Quarterbackers in the NFL, we have every single Pokemon character...and you're arguing that an alleged terrorist "isn't notable enough" to merit a neutral article collecting the details about them?
198:
560:. But, no offense, when I checked the policies they cited, for myself, I could not find the passages that required media coverage. I'd be very grateful if you can find the places in the policy that state this.
341:
suggests "usefulness" is not always a good argument for inclusion. But, since this article does fully comply with policy, I would suggest this is one of the instances when usefulness is a good argument for
1149:
Nick, sometimes people agree on the facts, and disagree in the conclusions they draw. But, no offense, you have repeated a couple of misconceptions. The only
Guantanamo captive to receive a sentence was
1172:
Ok, minor wording issues aside, my general criticism still applies: is he notable for anything other than this event? If not, then the event article needs more attention, and this article can be deleted.
74:
1085:
791:. For a person to be notable s/he must recieve significant coverage in independant and/or secondary sources. This person hasn't recieved coverage in independant and/or secondary coverage.
453:"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
997:
whatever we need to. If something should make a large number of individuals notable, we can deal with it as long as we have verifiable information about each of them. In this case we do.
556:
You confuse me. Every fact that should be referenced is referenced. Every reference in this article is verifiable. Several people have told me that the policies state articles require
800:
Agreed that the
Guantanomo Bay prison and how it functions are notable, but that doesn't mean that each of the 800 prisoners that have spent time there automatically become notable.
1414:
681:
60 and 90 respectively, which aren't awful for folks whose fifteen minutes of fame (if they can be said to have had that many) were before the
Internet era. That being said,
145:
1476:
per Bfigura. Articles on arbitrary Gitmo detainees are generally going to fall due to non-notability. I'm seriously concerned that many of these articles are being used as
112:
107:
116:
416:
1109:
913:
The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded.".
99:
488:
1274:
1510:
1493:
1468:
1450:
1429:
1404:
1382:
1341:
1319:
If the individuals in that category have done nothing notable outside of surviving the holocaust, then those articles should be deleted, clearly. --
1314:
1286:
1268:
1245:
1226:
1195:
1167:
1144:
1116:
1069:
1031:
1008:
980:
958:
930:
885:
852:
771:
752:
724:
710:
671:
590:
551:
522:
498:
474:
432:
404:
389:
354:
257:
231:
213:
188:
175:
57:
325:
462:
would really appreciate it, if you would try to explain why you do not regard this allegation, his disappearance from the record, as significant.
578:
coverage, then I would agree with deleting this article, until the policies were rewritten. I'd nominate similar articles for deletion myself.
458:
Please note, he is accused of having been one of Osama bin Laden's bodyguards, something that lead to other captives facing war crimes charges.
563:
Other challengers seem to be saying that even if the policy doesn't state that articles require media coverage we should treat the policies
1529:
1040:
337:
articles like this one are explicitly cited, and instances where I am morally convinced an author used our material without citing it.
1502:
Could you please point out a passage that could be interpreted as npov and rousing anti-GB sentiments in this particular article (cf.
17:
1522:
Even if Muhamad wasn't notable for being an alleged body-guard to Osama Bin Laden, articles on individual detainees is motivated by
1332:
1186:
1135:
1060:
949:
876:
103:
1112:, it has been chosen to have all the others black, which is very reasonable, as a lot of red links is distracting to the reader. ¨
842:
483:
declaration of "significance?" If (allegedly) being bin Laden's bodyguard makes the fellow notable, how can his name have only
315:
The wikipedia already covers lots of topics I am not interested in, and some I think are patent nonsense. I think the field of
809:, the article has a number of other problems. The article is primarly about his stay at Guantanomo Bay, it therefore violates
323:
Similarly, I am not a fan of American football. I didn't play it as a kid, and don't really know the rules. I took a look at
831:
731:
287:
although the rules required his continued detention to have been reviewed in 2005, the record shows it was not reviewed.
95:
63:
1548:
1292:
682:
36:
1082:
153:
without trial in the cause fo "freedom" is one of the greater ironies of the 21st Century, but Knowledge (XXG) is not
1373:. This doesn't appear like a "faux biography" to me. I think this individual is significant enough to be recorded. --
1078:
1524:
921:
I've asked this participant to be specific about which passage(s) triggered their concern over a "blatant POV".
281:
1547:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
730:
about. Marraiges, children, where they went to school, etc. But we do know quite a bit about Al Juhani. The
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1043:
should be redlinked? That's a lot of stub articles for people that may only be notable for a prison sentence.
1459:
released, so the notion that there is a harm in having articles about this individual is hard to understand.
1299:. (Not to say that I think all articles in that category necessarily pose a problem -- only if they have the
509:
Let me suggest that the losing track of Al Juhani the record reflects has more in common to the release of
1503:
1303:
problem of not including biographical information and only focusing on one event in the person's life.) --
660:
490:, a total dwarved by insignificant Myspace wannabees we AfD in carload lots? Answer: he ain't notable.
1325:
1179:
1128:
1053:
942:
869:
154:
1477:
968:
818:
699:
300:. I believe this article, on the other hand, fully complies with the wikipedia's policies, including
377:
issue -- there isn't a thing here not on legal record -- but as it stands, the sources are not really
1092:
847:
544:
425:
290:
he did have a Review Board hearing scheduled for 2006 -- a month after he had already been released.
1378:
1282:
1105:
Perhaps he should be added, then? About half are blue-linked, it seems in this list as a matter of
647:
441:
No offense, I hope, if I question whether you may have a misconception I have encountered before.
53:
663:? Does that mean they "fail notability"? No, it means that "internet culture" is not a sufficient
1446:
1425:
1241:
1163:
976:
926:
817:
problem. In addition, as the article seems to be focused on Guantanomo Bay, it is also violating
767:
758:
748:
656:
639:
623:
610:, even ignoring my hatred for "second attempts" to have something deleted....we have articles on
586:
518:
470:
400:
350:
227:
209:
1300:
1254:
1099:
810:
695:
1464:
915:
Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary.
381:(as opposed to being about Guantanamo detainees generally) and I question whether any exist.
274:
I would appreciate a fuller explanation as to why nominator considers this a "faux-biography".
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1481:
1362:
305:
301:
297:
1507:
1489:
1320:
1174:
1123:
1113:
1048:
1028:
937:
864:
479:
Hrm, how many prisoners do you think the United States "loses" a day? What about that is a
185:
1439:
1370:
1296:
1232:
1214:
895:
827:
814:
806:
788:
442:
374:
365:
338:
159:
1222:
1095:
837:
537:
418:
304:. If there is some passage(s) the nominator, or anyone else, thinks does not comply with
1366:
1374:
1278:
721:
703:
668:
643:
491:
382:
49:
1480:
to bring up anti-GB sentiments. Which sentiments I tend to share, but grossly violate
1358:
1039:
If all GB prisoners are ipso facto notable, then does that mean that all the names on
736:
1442:
1421:
1237:
1159:
1089:
1004:
972:
922:
763:
744:
582:
514:
510:
466:
396:
346:
252:
246:
223:
205:
170:
164:
1393:
well covered and documented, that makes the treatment notable, not the individuals.
1460:
1394:
1304:
1258:
1106:
1017:
834:(there's a lot of articles about quaterbacks) are not valid bases for inclusion. --
635:
627:
611:
813:. The article's single-minded focus on his stay at Guantanomo Bay also point to a
133:
898:
explicitly clarifies, in the first paragraph, that notability is not the same as
1485:
1151:
664:
619:
615:
1218:
569:
they said what "everyone" thinks they say. Well, if it were really true that
316:
536:
source that is wikipedia summarizes what has been written about the subject.
631:
1047:
And this guy isn't even on that list! Tell me again how he is notable? --
1016:
All Guantanamo prisoners hailing from western countries, for example the
999:
655:
In addition, how many unique Google hits will you find for somebody like
1102:; if you will, Gitmo is like winning gold in the global carceral system.
162:
climate, merged or deleted, and I believe that is fundamentally right.
826:
The reasons proffered for his notability aren't legitamite reasons.
1024:. I'm sure there's a fair deal of sources about him in Arabic too:
199:
list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions
85:
Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (3rd nomination)
80:
Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani (2nd nomination)
1528:, if longer than a couple of lines as it otherwise would make the
1541:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
184:
per nom, unless a merge target can be found for abridged info.--
787:. Plain and simple - doesn't meet the notability standards of
1020:, couldn't be more notable and have received media coverage
222:. Press coverage of the proceedings has made him notable. --
805:
Besides for the failure to meet the notability standard of
1122:
sentence, or is he only notable for this single event? --
1231:
I have read assertions that these kinds of sources fail
1154:, for the final couple of months or so he spent there.
1156:
Please don't confuse the captives with convicted felons
140:
129:
125:
121:
368:. Media coverage of Guantanamo have made the inmates
240:No, press coverage of the proceedings has made the
1532:completely unmanageable.14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
75:Articles for deletion/Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani
1415:list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1551:). No further edits should be made to this page.
911:
830:(he might have been bin Laden's bodyguard) and
451:
312:topics, then lets talk about those caps openly.
298:wikipedia's policy on the neutral point of view
395:which I think you will agree, is about him?
8:
1275:Category:Nazi concentration camp survivors
795:, he hasn't recieved significant coverage.
689:being said, this article in fact contains
308:, or any other policy, please be specific.
527:User GeoSwan- you made the quote for me-
1413:: This debate has been included in the
197:: This debate has been included in the
1357:, the information in the article looks
446:am going to paste in the lead sentence:
326:Category:American football quarterbacks
72:
269:-- disclaimer, I started this article.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1273:So I take it you'll be cleaning out
70:
967:And thanks for your comment about
24:
685:isn't a compelling argument, and
296:to comply with anything like the
280:Analysts accused him of being an
1530:List of Guantánamo Bay detainees
1041:List of Guantánamo Bay detainees
863:repatriated to his country. --
158:detainees are, in the present
1:
1525:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
1365:, and does not appear to be
96:Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani
64:Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani
1568:
1511:14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
1494:09:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
741:"verifiability, not truth"
58:11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
1469:01:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
1451:03:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1430:02:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1405:00:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1383:00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1342:22:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
1315:23:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1287:15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1269:03:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1246:01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1227:06:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
1196:20:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
1168:17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
1145:03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
1117:04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
1070:15:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1032:06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
1009:02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
981:17:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
959:12:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
931:05:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
886:01:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
853:21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
772:16:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
753:02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
725:22:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
711:22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
672:20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
591:01:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
552:18:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
523:23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
499:19:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
475:18:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
433:18:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
405:01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
390:16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
355:16:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
329:. It currently contains
282:Osama bin Laden bodyguard
258:18:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
232:16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
214:14:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
189:14:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
176:14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
46:no consensus for deletion
1544:Please do not modify it.
757:I started an article on
732:Summary of Evidence memo
32:Please do not modify it.
894:WRT to "claim to fame"
828:WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH
739:says we should aim for
918:
661:Thomas Bernard Brigham
455:
69:AfDs for this article:
762:bodyguard. Cheers!
640:Hitler's medical aide
155:Amnesty International
624:Hitler's electrician
832:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
487:unique Google hits
48:, default to keep.
1293:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
1077:Just like there's
759:Frederick G. Creed
683:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS
657:Raymond Lee Harvey
644:Hitler's secretary
636:Hitler's bodyguard
612:Hitler's chauffeur
504:had been released.
1432:
1418:
1367:original research
1217:basic criteria.
540:special, random,
421:special, random,
379:about the subject
256:
216:
202:
174:
44:The result was }
1559:
1546:
1419:
1409:
1402:
1399:
1369:— conforming to
1337:
1328:
1323:
1312:
1309:
1291:I don't see how
1266:
1263:
1191:
1182:
1177:
1140:
1131:
1126:
1065:
1056:
1051:
954:
945:
940:
881:
872:
867:
845:
840:
707:
667:for notability.
548:
541:
495:
429:
422:
386:
250:
203:
193:
168:
143:
137:
119:
34:
1567:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1549:deletion review
1542:
1400:
1395:
1340:
1333:
1326:
1321:
1310:
1305:
1264:
1259:
1194:
1187:
1180:
1175:
1143:
1136:
1129:
1124:
1068:
1061:
1054:
1049:
957:
950:
943:
938:
884:
877:
870:
865:
843:
838:
815:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL
705:
628:Hitler's doctor
546:
539:
493:
427:
420:
412:merge or delete
384:
139:
110:
94:
91:
89:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1565:
1563:
1554:
1553:
1536:
1534:
1533:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1497:
1496:
1471:
1453:
1433:
1407:
1386:
1385:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1330:
1317:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1184:
1133:
1103:
1075:
1058:
1011:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
965:
947:
919:
908:
907:
889:
888:
874:
856:
855:
823:
822:
802:
801:
797:
796:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
755:
727:
714:
713:
652:
651:
632:Hitler's pilot
620:Hitler's nurse
616:Hitler's valet
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
579:
561:
558:media coverage
506:
505:
463:
459:
456:
448:
447:
436:
435:
409:
408:
407:
358:
357:
343:
334:
321:
313:
309:
293:
292:
291:
288:
285:
275:
271:
270:
263:
262:
261:
260:
235:
234:
217:
191:
150:
149:
90:
88:
87:
82:
77:
71:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1564:
1552:
1550:
1545:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1531:
1527:
1526:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1504:wp:otherstuff
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1472:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1406:
1403:
1398:
1391:
1388:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1343:
1338:
1336:
1329:
1324:
1318:
1316:
1313:
1308:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1267:
1262:
1256:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1209:
1197:
1192:
1190:
1183:
1178:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1141:
1139:
1132:
1127:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1079:a lot of stub
1076:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1066:
1064:
1057:
1052:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1002:
1001:
995:
992:
991:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
961:
960:
955:
953:
946:
941:
934:
933:
932:
928:
924:
920:
917:
916:
910:
909:
905:
903:
897:
893:
892:
891:
890:
887:
882:
880:
873:
868:
861:
858:
857:
854:
851:
850:
849:
846:
841:
833:
829:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
803:
799:
798:
794:
790:
786:
783:
782:
773:
769:
765:
760:
756:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:verifiability
733:
728:
726:
723:
718:
717:
716:
715:
712:
709:
708:
702:violations?
701:
697:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
653:
649:
648:Hitler's chef
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
606:
605:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
572:
568:
567:
562:
559:
555:
554:
553:
550:
549:
543:
542:
535:
530:
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
512:
511:Willie Horton
508:
507:
502:
501:
500:
497:
496:
489:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
457:
454:
450:
449:
444:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
431:
430:
424:
423:
417:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
393:
392:
391:
388:
387:
380:
376:
371:
367:
363:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
335:
332:
328:
327:
322:
318:
314:
310:
307:
303:
299:
294:
289:
286:
283:
279:
278:
277:Please note:
276:
273:
272:
268:
265:
264:
259:
254:
249:
248:
243:
239:
238:
237:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
215:
211:
207:
200:
196:
192:
190:
187:
183:
180:
179:
178:
177:
172:
167:
166:
161:
156:
147:
142:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1543:
1540:
1535:
1523:
1519:
1473:
1455:
1435:
1410:
1396:
1389:
1354:
1334:
1306:
1260:
1250:
1210:
1188:
1137:
1107:copy-editing
1062:
1044:
1036:
1021:
1018:Tipton Three
1013:
998:
993:
951:
914:
912:
901:
899:
878:
859:
848:(yada, yada)
836:
835:
792:
784:
740:
704:
690:
686:
678:
607:
575:
570:
565:
564:
557:
545:
538:
533:
528:
492:
484:
480:
452:
426:
419:
411:
383:
378:
370:collectively
369:
361:
331:1136 entries
330:
324:
266:
245:
241:
219:
194:
181:
163:
151:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1508:victor falk
1257:applies. --
1236:have not?
1152:David Hicks
1114:victor falk
1029:victor falk
969:WP:COATRACK
819:WP:COATRACK
700:WP:COATRACK
665:litmus test
608:Strong keep
481:prima facie
242:proceedings
1359:verifiable
1083:red-linked
1022:ad nauseam
793:A fortiori
706:RGTraynor
694:more than
547:Merkinsmum
494:RGTraynor
428:Merkinsmum
385:RGTraynor
342:inclusion.
317:Homeopathy
1478:coatracks
1375:Pixelface
1279:Pixelface
1096:medalists
964:deletion.
722:Sherurcij
669:Sherurcij
581:Cheers!
465:Cheers!
345:Cheers!
320:nonsense.
244:notable.
50:Sandstein
1443:Xdenizen
1422:Geo Swan
1335:contribs
1301:WP:BLP1E
1277:next? --
1255:WP:BLP1E
1238:Geo Swan
1189:contribs
1160:Geo Swan
1138:contribs
1100:WP:PAPER
1086:articles
1063:contribs
973:Geo Swan
952:contribs
923:Geo Swan
879:contribs
811:WP:UNDUE
764:Geo Swan
745:Geo Swan
696:WP:BLP1E
679:Comment:
583:Geo Swan
571:everyone
534:tertiary
515:Geo Swan
467:Geo Swan
397:Geo Swan
347:Geo Swan
224:Eastmain
206:Geo Swan
146:View log
1520:Comment
1482:WP:NPOV
1461:JoshuaZ
1363:neutral
1327:Penguin
1295:trumps
1251:Comment
1181:Penguin
1130:Penguin
1090:olympic
1055:Penguin
1037:Comment
944:Penguin
871:Penguin
362:Delete:
306:WP:NPOV
302:WP:NPOV
182:Delete
113:protect
108:history
1486:Stifle
1474:Delete
1440:WP:BIO
1438:fails
1436:Delete
1401:figura
1390:Delete
1371:WP:BLP
1311:figura
1297:WP:BLP
1265:figura
1233:WP:BIO
1215:WP:BIO
1211:Delete
896:WP:BIO
860:Delete
844:crewer
807:WP:BIO
789:WP:BIO
785:Delete
485:twenty
443:WP:BIO
375:WP:BLP
366:WP:BIO
364:Fails
339:WP:ATA
160:WP:BLP
141:delete
117:delete
1219:BWH76
1110:style
576:media
566:as if
529:every
253:Help!
171:Help!
144:) – (
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
1490:talk
1465:talk
1456:keep
1447:talk
1426:talk
1411:Note
1379:talk
1355:Keep
1322:Nick
1283:talk
1242:talk
1223:talk
1176:Nick
1164:talk
1125:Nick
1093:gold
1088:for
1081:and
1074:Yes.
1050:Nick
1045:EDIT
1014:Keep
1005:talk
994:keep
977:talk
939:Nick
927:talk
902:fame
866:Nick
839:brew
768:talk
749:talk
698:and
687:that
646:and
587:talk
519:talk
471:talk
401:talk
351:talk
267:Keep
228:talk
220:Keep
210:talk
195:Note
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
54:talk
1417:.
1158:.
1000:DGG
659:or
247:Guy
201:.
186:Doc
165:Guy
1506:)?
1492:)
1484:.
1467:)
1449:)
1428:)
1381:)
1361:,
1285:)
1244:)
1225:)
1173:--
1166:)
1098:,
1007:)
979:)
929:)
770:)
751:)
691:no
642:,
638:,
634:,
630:,
626:,
622:,
618:,
614:,
589:)
521:)
473:)
403:)
353:)
230:)
212:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
56:)
1488:(
1463:(
1445:(
1424:(
1420:—
1397:B
1377:(
1339:)
1331:(
1307:B
1281:(
1261:B
1240:(
1221:(
1193:)
1185:(
1162:(
1142:)
1134:(
1067:)
1059:(
1003:(
975:(
956:)
948:(
925:(
906:.
904:"
900:"
883:)
875:(
821:.
766:(
747:(
585:(
517:(
469:(
399:(
349:(
284:.
255:)
251:(
226:(
208:(
204:—
173:)
169:(
148:)
138:(
136:)
98:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.