2385:. Not only is all this from relevant policies and gudelines, the policies obviously taking precedence here but it makes clear that claims of significance or presumed notability are not an automatic factored-in exception to the Promotional or WP:Advocacy policies. None of the latest Keep comments have successfully refuted how our policies will in fact accept this, without violating our principles. As our WP:Policies page says, any changes to the fundaments here must be made by the necessary process, not by a particular AfD and because AfDs can be so fragmented, they cannot alone support all cases alone, unlike specific policies I've cited here. Also, in regards to special human interest as a subject, we specifically have WP:Not a charity, in addition to WP:Not advocacy.
916:
and next, the Terms of Use because of the uncontested claims that this was in fact by the company's own hands without complying with said Terms of Use. Since Terms of Use is a principle over any guidelines, WP:GNG itself cannot alone actually outweigh a
Foundation Policy. Also, a comment above suggests the nominator has an "axe to grind" and this couldn't be further from the case, since the last AfD and this, have had a different nominator both with different votes then and now, therefore this wouldn't be relevant to the general concerns that existed then and now: Unquestionable promotionalism and ToU violations. Another above claims there's additional sourcing but
2695:
increasing daily, and I see firms openly advertising for people to write their wikipedia articles. For example, on the Upwork website, "Seeking to find someone who can build a
Knowledge (XXG) a page. Qualifications: 1. Can work under pressure 2. Excellent communication skills 3. Extensive background in wikipedia page building", and "Wiki Admin or Editor required". Unfortunately I can't find out who the prospective employer is without applying for and getting the job and I'm not going to compromise my position by doing so. That means I also can't track down the editors who are doing the spamming.
1441:
all the bearing in the world on notability. For example, it is notable that mySupermarket was providing features for customization of virtual shelves in 2006 that were not commonly available at the time on retailer websites; and it remains notable whether or not online retailers in 2017 now routinely provide those features. Even aside from this particular innovation, the sources make clear that mySupermarket's comparison service was highly innovative when it was introduced, and thus was of historical significance. The mention of special handling for
250:, of which only half of that is new since the last AfD. When there's such a dry desert of coverage, it shows us there's not actually any coverage, and the few existing are all pre-packaged from the company's own hands. As if it weren't worse, 1 of the "Keep" voters in the last AfD was compromised by the fact an undisclosed paid user participated, therefore bringing everything into question once again. As by our Terms of Use, that is immediate violation in anything, regardless of anything. The last AfD was labeled as "improve it, not delete" but
2578:-Some (most ?) of the sources such as the Express are simply parroting press releases but others such as The Guardian demand more scrutiny. Here, much is made of the effectiveness or otherwise of the app but most of the text is actually about the cost of shopping and again there seems to be heavy reliance on the website's own blurb. I don't see notability here, I am not convinced of the independence of the refs, I see no balancing text to the company sales speak - it is a relentless promotional vehicle for a website and doesn't belong here.
339:-- Comparison of MySupermarket to Tesco is the same as comparison of Kayak.com to British Airways. One is a website; the other has physical plant and has an offering of its own. The last time this article when through AfD, there were lots of promises to clean things up. The article is still an ode. The choice of statistics is precious promotion. I looked on Alexa. Some are outright lies. I would start by deleting every sentence that is followed by a CN.
1419:
notability of the company. The inclusion of details such as whether users are Amazon Prime members are simply promoting a USP. Adding in that the USA website offers filters is promotional. Describing that items have photographs serves no purpose in terms of notability of the company. Fair play for the first draft - I'd say cut deeper with the editing scalpel and it should be fine.
1503:
the attention of an encyclopedia. There is one sentence in the article that I think should be removed that talks about pricing. I tend to agree with reducing the coverage. I don't see the mention of
Insights and Shops adding anything, or the description of the shopping experience. We don't need to be told that investment money is used to get more customers.
1144:(David, Robu, Shehory, Stein, and Symeonidis 2013) at first sight looks like an ideal reference. Unfortunately, the actual material dealing with mySupermarket is from a chapter written by three programmers who actually built mySupermarket's electronic commerce system (see page 58 for this information), and is therefore not independent of the company.
2608:. In particular, this topic includes sources at Google scholar. As for balancing text, multiple editors have objected to one sentence in the article, including myself, and if you will read the entire discussion here, you will find that myself and another editor have each written versions of the article without that sentence.
2200:, this is getting tedious. Multiple major publication sources are available (and were identified at the last AfD). Article appears to have been re-written (which is at least a positive result of this AfD nomination, but "sledgehammer" and "nut" spring to mind) and I certainly wouldn't describe it as promotional now.
2316:
This article is primarily about the influence of an earlier web shopping application, BargainFinder, but mySupermarket gets an explanatory box (Figure 4) on page 25, along with a paragraph in the main text on the same page. Since this is an independent and reliable source, it could have been included
2283:
unremarkable—I agree that $ 15 million in capitalization is peanuts by corporate standards, and when I found that the four sources that survived my independence and reliability checks contained no investment information, my reaction was "good riddance". But writing off the site's web functionality as
1953:
to which it links. But as I understand those terms, the reach of television stations affiliated with major networks in the USA or the UK, in particular (even those with "local" in their URLs, as in "abclocal") is such that all of them would qualify as regional; this is especially clear for those that
1852:
document itself. The relevant reasoning, implicit in several deletionist entries above, and made explicit in the comment that keeping this page would be "appeasing undisclosed paid activity as actually valid", is that anything less than page deletion would amount to rewarding the paid malefactors and
1418:
In my opinion, your rewrite is written with a promotional tone and focuses on the website (and how it works) as opposed to the company (and why the company is notable). Most of the "Price comparison" section is unnecessary and all of the "Ordering" section is unnecessary. These have no bearing on the
2635:
Terms of Use and
Policies – You adhere to the below Terms of Use and to the applicable community policies when you visit our sites or participate in our communities. Under the following conditions....You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content). This means it is important
2504:
that AfDs cannot override policy (or guidelines, except insofar as the guidelines themselves authorize this via their "commonsense exceptions" clause). I have myself made this point in other AfDs against attempts to justify counterintuitive interpretations of certain guidelines. Even with relisting,
1440:
My rewrite merely reflects the focus and concerns of the independent, reliable sources I used. The historical significance of a company's products and services (in mySupermarket's case, the website and its functionality) forms a large part of the historical significance of the company itself; it has
1302:
4 wouldn't be enough; but, remember, the other major concern here wasn't only the promotionalism or the sources, but in fact the repeated Terms of Use violations of undisclosed paid editing and the clear negligence of not complying; such ToU can and should be considered an unquestionably valid basis
1272:
Despite all the sources that must be disqualified, the four that remain should allow a non-promotional, independently and reliably sourced article to be written. Another point worthy of mention: mySupermarket is used routinely as a data source (but not, unfortunately, as itself the focus of inquiry)
2323:
is a counterexample to the idea that the functionality of shopping sites is only of interest to those who want to profit from them or to be their end-users. And even the end-users deserve some credit for reflective thought. The consumer reviews I used in my rewrite don't just say that mySupermarket
1502:
Obviously the topic meets GNG on two continents, and it has been around since 2006 so attention to the topic is sustained. I looked at Google scholar and confirmed that academia has an interest in an "online supermarket aggregator". The topic is worthy of notice, but I've not seen much that needs
1459:
I would very much have liked to include another type of historical significance: the comprehensive comparison service offered by mySupermarket has been at least as much a useful innovation for academic researchers on web commerce as it was for consumers, as a glance at Google
Scholar makes obvious.
915:
as there's enough in weight in our important factors here: WP:What
Knowledge (XXG) is not and Terms of Use; the first because it's still clearly existing for promoting the company itself and that can unquestionably enough for removal alone but with the clause that an improved page can be restarted,
1455:
Likewise, providing favorable information does not in itself create a "promotional tone". The three consumer reviews among my four sources were all highly favorable to mySupermarket; that favorability does not make them, nor my article, promotional. I actually went out of my way to include the few
1071:
template.) The deletion advocates have a point about the majority of the sources. The principal problem with most of the sources is lack of independence: they are too heavily sourced from mySupermarket itself. On the other hand, enough independent, reliable sources remain that they should allow an
2694:
I would not argue that this topic is not notable. However, I think there is a serious need for protection of articles which have a history like this one, and perhaps a general investigation into paid editing (unless there is one already going on that I don't know about). I see the amount of spam
1640:
necessarily promotional—especially when they directly address its historical significance. Introduction of types of functionality new to a particular form of web commerce remain of interest over a decade after the fact, and (as I pointed out in the deleted text) regardless of whether they remain
1449:
illustrates the flexibility and sophistication of the website's comparison methods. The ability to order from online retailers without bothering with their individual websites appears to be a historical innovation, and remains of significance whether or not other online comparison sites now also
959:
and this obviously means exactly what it is: Coverage that is without exceptions independent; and so, because other sources may exist, this wasn't evidently the case since 2 pages quickly gave such primary-fueled sources. With or without the sufficient coverage, however, the weight of
Foundation
1338:
in a separate entry; this includes the "appeasement" theory and the "unquestionably valid basis for deletion" claim. I'll also be attempting a clean-room rewrite of the article in my sandbox, keeping only the images and the four references identified above as independent and reliable. Often the
2644:
notable if it not excluded under the WP:What
Knowledge (XXG) is not policy....and are not outside the scope of Knowledge (XXG). This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page.". I can't imagine at any time, that we would ever advance a general
2412:
I never denied that policy prohibits undisclosed paid editing. The point is that stating a prohibition is a different matter from saying how the authorities should respond when the prohibition is violated. None of the relevant policies or guidelines—including the portions quoted with emphasis
1983:
Also, a review in a national or international publication, about a company serving the entire UK or USA, does not become "local" just because the reviewer evaluated it from the perspective of where they happened to live. Such a review remains relevant to the company's services throughout its
2018:
is promotional, then that characterization is wrong. The characterization of promotionalism as a focus on the consumer functionality of products and services, as a focus on "details that would primarily concern those wanting to use" a product or service, fails this test very badly. The
897:
the cleaned up version looks ok. Not too promotional, includes independant reviews. We don't need to delete every single business page and keep every cricket player that played one game. I find the bueiness pages more useful than the pagant winners and youtubers that get pages.
2278:
The notability of mySupermarket stems solely from its role as a web application. If for some reason a nonprofit or a government entity took it over and continued to provide the same services, its notability would be unaffected. As a money-making business entity, mySupermarket
224:"Changing the face of shopping", " allow you to shop", "food of £45.30, olive oil at £1.49, potatoes for £1.78, £1.18, saving, sauges, £1.18 saving", " show the potential....", "MySupermarket promises a seamless and simple.... said:....designed to to be uncomplicated...."
2672:
Conceding that I have no idea what the evidence of this paid editing allegation is: in summary, you want a WP:DEL14 deletion for a problem that no longer exists, and you can't cite relevant text from WP:NOT? And even then, why are you rejecting a "clean-room rewrite"?
2284:
devoid of interest is a serious mistake. Since "just a shopping web site" is a somewhat different charge than promotionalism, terms-of-use violation, or purely local interest, I decided to give the site's Google
Scholar results a second look, and found the following:
1765:
Thank you for restoring the deleted material—and for clarifying that such a deletion was not, and would never have been, intentional. I thought of restoring the deleted material myself, but I didn't know you well enough to be sure that the deletion was
228:
Source 7 is yet another indiscriminate comparison, (article begins with company stamp, continues on and ends with "visit website" and the quote "free shipping for baskets over $ 75.00" and Source 13 follows it quite closely with unquestionable
2651:
The
Knowledge (XXG) deletion policy describes how pages that do not meet the relevant criteria for content of the encyclopedia are identified and removed from Knowledge (XXG)....Deletion:Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia.
1253:
2362:
These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to
2061:
favor that conclusion as well, and can do so without sacrificing neutrality. My rewrite of the present page portrays consumer functionality as the aspect of mySupermarket that contributes most to its historical significance and impact
1089:
I've looked through all the sources provided (except for the ones from TheGrocer.co.uk and Greylock, whose text was not accessible in my browser). Four, all already present in the article, were reasonably independent and reliable:
2638:. If we acknowledge the paid editing which the Keep votes haven't refuted or denied, then we can only see facts as they are : Undisclosed laid editing occurred in contrary to the necessary process. To now quote WP:GNG:
766:
2044:
reports. It even refuses advertising, specifically in order to avoid conflicts of interest that could lead to bias. I see promotionalism as a form of COI-driven bias; the most relevant Knowledge (XXG) policy is not
187:
436:
412:
85:
80:
1839:
such action, subject to the discretion of policy enforcers (such as Knowledge (XXG) administrators) as to what response to a particular set of violations is in Wikimedia's best interest. Still less does
1377:
violations on Knowledge (XXG) often appear to be aimed at least as much at investors as at customers.) If this article is kept, I'm prepared to replace it immediately with this clean-room version.
2379:
Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability. Self-promotion, autobiography, product placement and most paid material are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article
1181:
1739:) 02:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC) Done. But I never do that sort of thing deliberately--any of you could just have restored it themselves as well. I always appreciate people correcting my errors.
2332:
to save money. That—and not investment information—is the kind of depth relevant to a description of a web shopping application. The sources provide it, and do not treat it as routine at all.
858:
2025:
is, as its name implies, almost entirely about consumer functionality; and although it frequently publishes harshly critical reviews, it also frequently publishes highly favorable ones.
1476:
academic sources make the same use of mySupermarket's data. If I've missed a secondary source that does make that observation, it should definitely be added to the Knowledge (XXG) page.
316:
238:
Source 14, 16 and 17 are all indiscriminate local news in the US about the company's initiated plans; this bears nothing but to show the company has unrelenting ties overseas, which
2513:) a very strong consensus for deletion in an AfD is needed to foreclose the ongoing consensus resulting from page editing, and a "no consensus" close results in the page being kept.
1373:, except for the tags at the top and the reference list at the bottom. It does not include investment information, as none was available from the four legitimate sources I used. (
140:
950:-- a general announcement involving another subject ~~ As a summary, the next sources go back and forth to actually consist of either obvious or hidden similarities of all this
1853:
endorsing their work. But a number of heterogeneous considerations go into decisions whether to keep or delete pages, or to retain or remove text from a page; and nothing in
760:
2421:
be removed. It depends on the notability of the topic and the merit of the specific content in question—not just on the illicit source of the page or its content. From
181:
554:
296:
75:
2356:- I had been meaning to post some extra analysis since a user above claims the Terms of Use is not explicitly persecutive of undisclosed paid editing. However, from
1191:
1911:
violators an overriding concern, indicate clearly that preserving pages on notable topics is the overriding consideration in responding even to blatant advertising.
1235:
by Amy Buckman likewise relies too heavily on mySupermarket as a source. (On the other hand, it too should be considered regional, not local, by the standards of
147:
276:
I apparently did mistakenly delete 2 comments. But what I said remains true: the material is promotional .I'm going to try to restore this page as it should be.
920:
in fact are the same ones currently in the article therefore no evidence of actual outside sourcing; also, to show if there's any genuine outside sourcing, the
1159:
2600:
Editors can't just look at an article and claim that the sources in the article are not sufficient for notability. That is not how notability is defined at
851:
1658:'s remarks to which I was responding, as well as my own remarks—is disruptive to this deletion discussion. Please restore all the deleted text immediately.
1641:
unique to mySupermarket today. Note that one of the forms of functionality in question, customization of price comparison for the store-brand retailer
2057:
is clear that if the consensus of reliable and independent sources favors a particular conclusion, then the Knowledge (XXG) article based on them can
2452:
1201:
1907:
actually directs the user through links to those same notability guidelines. And the notability guidelines, far from making reward or punishment of
1224:
by Ric Romero relies too heavily on mySupermarket as a source. (On the other hand, it should be considered regional, not local, by the standards of
1941:): most if not all of the media publishing the sources I considered above—including the majority that I disqualified on various grounds other than
1103:
820:
1857:
even makes rewarding or punishing Terms of Use violators one of those considerations, let alone a consideration capable of overriding all others.
2645:
Notability guideline instead of our own established Terms of Use, which themselves are clear on the process here. Also, see WP:Deletion policy:
464:
408:
2654:
therefore a Terms of Use violation, no matter if someone else contributed, is still a violation and it's our responsibility to take action.
2451:
if no notable content remains. However, if an article contains only blatant advertising, with no other useful content, it may be tagged per
1686:
that immediately followed mine. Whether or not this was intentional, it too was disruptive, and I ask you to restore those remarks as well.
450:
2725:, should not be read as sympathy for allowing further contributions by the undisclosed paid editors who created the problematic versions.
1148:
844:
827:
258:
was involved; improving something that either was pre-used by the company or after, shows nobody actually found the evidence of change.
2636:
that you use caution when posting content. We reserve the right to exercise our enforcement discretion with respect to the above terms.
1151:
by Ed Monk is apparently independent of mySupermarket, but is likely not a reliable source; it is owned by the same media group as the
2328:
it can save money, so that any given reader can judge for themselves whether, and to what extent, the site's capabilities will enable
1522:
1135:
The others (from the article as it exists at present, from other participants, and a few I found on my own) all had serious problems:
534:
492:
218:
We're all too familiar with the concept of promotionalism, even when disguised in which this should be no different, see the sources:
2448:
17:
568:
478:
113:
108:
781:
2109:
117:
2739:
2704:
2682:
2663:
2617:
2588:
2566:
2548:
2525:
2495:
2403:
2344:
2265:
2228:
2209:
2192:
2158:
2133:
2111:
2078:
1996:
1923:
1780:
1751:
1721:
1698:
1670:
1623:
1596:
1569:
1534:
1512:
1488:
1427:
1391:
1351:
1321:
1297:
1273:
in scholarly articles on web commerce, as a Google Scholar search will show. I intend to address deletionist arguments based on
1045:
1015:
998:
978:
907:
887:
748:
726:
708:
652:
631:
608:
547:
429:
385:
367:
348:
328:
308:
287:
267:
58:
1844:
mandate, or even authorize, root-and-branch eradication of everything done in violation of the Terms of Use. In fact, deleting
1810:
if any conflict existed between them. But no such conflict exists on any matter relevant to this deletion discussion; in fact,
813:
582:
520:
506:
100:
2247:"...described the site as easy to use, with better savings achieved when spending over $ 75.00 to avoid shipping charges..."
2141:
I don't want to leave my draft in userspace for any length of time as it lacks full attribution, so I've copied it under at
202:
687:
promotional however Cunard has seen to that, The article includes indepth and reliable sourcing and so as such GNG is met,
222:
Source 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 14, 15, 18-20 are all locally-targeted or based indiscriminate publishers, including such words as
1127:
1123:
by Jill Papworth (the "Delivery Details" section at the end, sourced to mySupermarket, is separate from the main article).
169:
2087:
1032:
356:
It remains promotional. The onlychance of ever getting a cent article here is to remove this and let someone start over.
839:
2760:
2435:
is prohibited as an official Knowledge (XXG) policy. Advertising should be removed by following these steps, in order:
1709:
40:
596:
1873:
944:(on second page) -- 2 articles that share the same nature, because they consist of the same advice for local shoppers
742:
2125:. It is factual, strikes the correct encyclopedic tone and includes referenced support for each statement or claim.
1211:
1117:
960:
Policy is obviously a big factor here and it's one we shouldn't taken lightly in whatever circumstances of course.
806:
458:
402:
1636:
For reasons given in the text itself, that you have deleted, the relevant details of the site's functionality are
1264:
1243:
988:– Meets GNG, and the article has received copy editing to address tone matters after this AfD was initiated (e.g.
2678:
2613:
2154:
1956:
1565:
1530:
1508:
1011:
1876:
sketches a number of options, and directs the user to look elsewhere for more specific information. Its section
738:
2398:
1316:
973:
444:
163:
1249:
by "Diane" is apparently independent, but would likely count as self-published by Knowledge (XXG)'s standards.
1945:, as well as the four I accepted as legitimate—would in my judgment qualify as at least regional, not local.
1560:
Your response is indented to appear as a criticism of my rewrite, not Syrenka V's rewrite. Please clarify.
677:" - Clearly they have an axe to grind and want the article deleted and are seemingly trying any way they can
1974:
1717:
1303:
for deletion, because it means appeasing undisclosed paid activity as actually valid, when it's not at all.
1072:
article to be written. Also, some of the deletionist arguments, especially those based on the Terms of Use (
955:
My conclusion of this was all actually also keeping in consistency with what the WP:Notability pages says:
788:
416:
2176:
1366:
528:
486:
159:
2606:
WP:N#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
2506:
2383:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing
2253:
2756:
2261:
1872:
with how we should respond when someone creates something that violates its specifications. Its section
1041:
1006:
the sources are all local and promotional, not the type of sources to show notability for a corporation.
994:
722:
562:
472:
454:
398:
36:
1729:
Apologies, I did make an error in the editing. I'm restoring the deleted material in a minute or two.
1713:
1267:
is from a company retained by mySupermarket to fortify their web security, and thus is not independent.
2718:
2674:
2609:
2180:
2150:
2107:
1683:
1561:
1526:
1504:
1007:
209:
2237:
1585:
is details that would primarily concern those wanting to use the site. Such content is promotional.
2735:
2521:
2505:
the limited, short-term consensus of AfDs barely qualifies as consensus at all by the standards of
2491:
2386:
2340:
2224:
2188:
2074:
1992:
1919:
1776:
1694:
1666:
1484:
1387:
1347:
1304:
1293:
1036:
961:
903:
883:
774:
576:
514:
500:
440:
304:
255:
195:
2319:
2294:
1968:
754:
644:
600:
539:
421:
377:
104:
53:
2240:
for an encyclopedia article. The coverage is shallow and the reviews offered are routine, as in:
1877:
1831:
to deny use of its sites, including Knowledge (XXG), to violators. But it does not thereby even
1465:
1374:
1649:(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Jackson 2015), rather than in one of the consumer reviews I cited.
2538:
2053:. That policy explains that the test for balance is reflection of what is in the sources, and
1646:
1207:
by Ingrid Lunden is mostly sourced from company sources, and much of it is speculative anyway.
1095:
524:
482:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2755:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2478:
2439:
2432:
2422:
2054:
2050:
1949:
doesn't really define where "local" ends and "regional" begins, nor does the article section
1938:
1885:
1807:
1140:
938:-- generally also, but this time with clear emphasis by the company website's sourcing itself
690:
669:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2303:
2273:
2257:
2032:
2021:
2014:
2008:
1962:
1619:
1456:
unfavorable details in the sources (no fresh produce, no customer reviews of the retailers).
1065:
921:
648:
604:
558:
543:
468:
425:
381:
344:
247:
2510:
2467:
2463:
2122:
2046:
1946:
1942:
1934:
1904:
1889:
1861:
1818:
create no grounds for page deletion not already fully covered in the notability guidelines.
1815:
1803:
1795:
1335:
1331:
1282:
1278:
1236:
1225:
1165:
by Nathan Rao is heavily sourced from mySupermarket's own director of marketing; also, the
1081:
1077:
617:
175:
2658:
2562:
2205:
2102:
1525:. This is not a rewrite, though, as much as it is copy editing of the existing article.
590:
323:
262:
2006:
on definitions (or other characterizations) of promotionalism: I propose what I call the
1798:: it is true that these policy-level documents would trump notability guidelines such as
1461:
2629:- To add onto the previously deleted posted Terms of Use, I also want to make clear the
1892:, too, is short on concrete operational specifics of appropriate response to violators.)
1080:, are without merit, and some deletionist arguments stretch the locality criterion from
419:. I've reviewed the article, which in general is neutral with very minor cleanup needed.
2731:
2517:
2487:
2336:
2220:
2184:
2070:
1988:
1954:
serve major metropolitan areas. Similarly, a major USA metropolitan newspaper like the
1915:
1772:
1690:
1662:
1611:
1480:
1460:
The reason I didn't include that observation in the Knowledge (XXG) page is that it is
1383:
1343:
1289:
899:
879:
696:
572:
510:
496:
300:
2605:
2601:
2474:
1881:
1799:
2700:
2317:
in my rewrite if I had noticed it earlier. More fundamentally, the entire article in
2126:
1747:
1736:
1655:
1592:
1420:
621:
363:
283:
96:
64:
2717:
of the page after rewrite. My arguments in favor of keeping the page (after rewrite—
1365:
my clean-room rewrite of the article is now complete, and can presently be found in
2597:
2582:
1442:
2630:
2357:
616:- Virtually nothing in the article is not promotional. DGG is absolutely correct,
134:
2019:
characterization of promotionalism as portrayal in a favorable light also fails.
664:
1888:, for operational details of appropriate response. (Incidentally, the guideline
1615:
1472:
data from mySupermarket—none of them act as secondary sources by observing that
620:
would apply here. The canvassing by another editor is very problematic as well.
340:
2179:. Need I say—if my version is not adopted, I would strongly prefer adoption of
1848:
on the ground of Terms of Use violation requires reasoning not included in the
834:
2655:
2558:
2201:
957:
Significant, independent, reliable coverage that is independent of the subject
863:
586:
320:
259:
2236:-- just a shopping web site. Raised about $ 15M which strongly suggests it's
2098:
Does anyone else endorse Syrenka V's rewrite as solving the initial concerns?
1682:
Looking at the page history, I just noticed that you also removed remarks by
254:
shows no serious signs of this, nearly a year later, and a year before that,
1950:
1177:
itself, although not a red top, has had its own share of reliability issues.
1614:'s comment, all 4,000 characters, to say that the content was promotional?
2012:
test—if a characterization of promotionalism leads to the conclusion that
2696:
2477:
and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with
2375:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press
1760:
1742:
1731:
1677:
1631:
1607:
1587:
1555:
358:
278:
2537:
unless rewritten from scratch to remove adverts/promotional nonsense. -
2307:
2367:
contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation
1880:
likewise defers to guidelines, particularly the notability guidelines
1217:
by Emma Powell is published by what amounts to an advertising agency.
295:
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
1339:
easiest way to show that something is possible is to make it actual.
437:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination)
413:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination)
1232:
1221:
1187:
by Sarah Perez is almost entirely sourced to mySupermarket sources.
2066:. It's as simple as that, and it has nothing to do with promotion.
1835:
denial of use to violators, including repeat violators; it merely
1790:
on deletionist arguments that rely on the Wikimedia Terms of Use (
2557:(1) it's been rewritten already (2) what "promotional nonsense"?
1468:. As far as I could tell, the academic articles and books merely
2749:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1908:
1900:
1854:
1849:
1841:
1824:
1811:
1791:
1642:
1446:
1327:
1274:
1073:
2371:
It is not excluded under the What Knowledge (XXG) is not policy
917:
2417:
be deleted, or even that every word of the content they wrote
2292:
Wan, Yun; Peng, Gang (May 2010). "What's next for shopbots?".
2090:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
2539:
2413:
above—say that a page created by an undisclosed paid editor
932:-- a local trade article about locally relevant information
1708:
SOurces insufficient for notability. Looks G11. Certainly
2486:
That is what I am advocating, and trying to accomplish. —
1933:
on deletionist stretching of the locality criterion from
947:-- Same article but now in a clearer press releases form
2168:
2143:
1370:
989:
675:
662:
Note in the last AFD the nominator stated and I quote "
640:
417:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability#General notability guideline
251:
130:
126:
122:
1827:"Terms of Use", the Wikimedia Foundation reserves the
1521:
Inspired by Syrenka V, I've created my own rewrite at
1326:
As noted, I'll address deletionist arguments based on
773:
194:
2509:. That is one reason why (with a few exceptions like
935:-- general business announcement in a local publisher
2444:
Erase remaining advertising content from the article
2324:
can save money; they give information as to exactly
639:
I've removed the unsourced and promotional material
376:
Please explain how the article remains promotional.
86:
Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (3rd nomination)
81:
Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination)
2101:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
787:
555:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/MySupermarket
317:
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions
208:
2721:'s or my own), on the basis of notability of the
1654:Your removal of relevant argumentation—including
1039:, is certainly not local, nor is it promotional.
720:sources. More are available in various searches.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2763:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1899:overrule the notability guidelines, they don't.
1197:is entirely sourced explicitly to mySupermarket.
1169:is owned by the same media group as the red-top
941:-- A local guide for locally interested shoppers
2423:WP:CORP#Special note: advertising and promotion
2373:(from WP:Notability) and we also equally have:
1254:Net profit: how to succeed in digital business
1061:(I have accordingly tagged the article with a
2166:I've also done a copy-under of my rewrite to
246:Attempts to find other coverage only lead to
8:
2453:Knowledge (XXG):Criteria for speedy deletion
315:Note: This debate has been included in the
1155:, a notoriously unreliable red-top tabloid.
1099:(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, and Jackson 2015).
1029:"the sources are all local and promotional"
1868:, with what Knowledge (XXG) should not be—
314:
294:
1978:would be national or even international).
297:list of content for rescue consideration
232:Source 11 is is a business partner quote
929:-- A local story about a local customer
73:
1966:would be regional, not local (and the
1256:(Soskin 2010) is authored by the then
1028:
2449:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
2219:sufficient reliable sourcing exists.
2183:'s version to deletion of the page. —
1895:So although the policies in question
681:have it deleted, Anyway back on topic
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
2447:Delete the article by listing it at
1369:. Note that it is almost as long as
878:Good sources emphasise notability.
76:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket
71:
1523:User:Unscintillating/MySupermarket
1371:the present version of the article
1141:Agent-mediated electronic commerce
1109:by Sharon Franke and Harris Dupre.
24:
2481:, this is preferable to deletion.
1794:) and the Knowledge (XXG) policy
1710:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion_policy#4
1450:integrate shopping functionality.
924:that the WP:BEFORE gives, offers:
2256:; wikipedia is not a directory.
1864:is concerned primarily with the
1647:Management and business research
1645:, was mentioned in the textbook
1096:Management and business research
668:Just grab a bucket and mop this
242:company; international or local.
2633:make clear with the following:
1581:Lookingat it, the second part
1016:13:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
999:18:46, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
979:05:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
908:23:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
888:18:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
727:15:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
709:11:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
689:This AFD is nothing more than
653:04:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
632:03:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
609:04:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
548:03:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
430:03:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
386:03:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
368:00:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
349:23:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
329:22:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
268:22:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
1903:is silent on the matter, and
1403:reinserted material follows,:
2121:I am much more in favour of
1542:end of reinserted material.
397:per the sources provided by
59:21:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
2740:19:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2705:10:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2683:21:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2664:20:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2618:15:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2589:21:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
2567:16:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
2549:06:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
2526:05:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2496:05:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2404:02:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
2345:04:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
2266:01:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
2229:19:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
2210:18:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
2193:17:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
2159:15:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2134:13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2112:12:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2079:09:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1997:05:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1951:Newspaper#Local or regional
1924:04:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1781:03:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1752:02:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1722:02:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1699:01:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1671:01:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1624:00:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1597:00:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1570:03:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1535:18:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
1513:17:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
1489:21:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
1428:15:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
1392:01:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
1352:09:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1322:04:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1298:04:18, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1046:02:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
309:01:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
288:02:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2780:
2381:or also WP:Not advocacy's
1084:beyond the breaking point.
693:and should be Speedy Kept.
2175:, leaving only a link in
2123:Unscintillating's version
1610:, why did you write over
1233:ABC 6 Philadelphia report
1128:comparative review on AOL
439:participants and closer:
235:Source 12 is no-URL link7
2752:Please do not modify it.
1823:By calling the document
1222:ABC 7 Los Angeles report
32:Please do not modify it.
2369:and then we also have:
2377:followed by WP:SPIP's
2064:because the sources do
70:AfDs for this article:
2479:neutral point of view
1957:Philadelphia Inquirer
1265:case study by Reblaze
1202:investment report in
1149:review in Money.co.uk
1059:rewrite from scratch.
415:. The subject passes
2440:Knowledge (XXG):NPOV
1285:in a separate entry.
1975:Wall Street Journal
1037:Springer Publishing
256:the company account
2715:endorse protection
2308:10.1109/mc.2010.93
2096:Relisting comment:
2040:do, is to publish
1363:Update on rewrite:
48:The result was
2114:
1874:WP:WHATISTOBEDONE
1583:of the SV version
1573:
1552:
1462:original research
1260:of mySupermarket!
1106:Good Housekeeping
1008:John Pack Lambert
822:Good Housekeeping
331:
311:
57:
2771:
2754:
2587:
2546:
2545:
2542:
2500:Incidentally, I
2473:If a subject is
2401:
2396:
2311:
2277:
2174:
2169:Old revision of
2149:
2144:Old revision of
2131:
2100:
2093:
2091:
2033:Consumer Reports
2022:Consumer Reports
2015:Consumer Reports
2009:Consumer Reports
1764:
1681:
1635:
1572:
1559:
1551:
1425:
1319:
1314:
1070:
1064:
1044:
997:
976:
971:
792:
791:
777:
725:
706:
701:
673:
628:
625:
455:Northamerica1000
399:Northamerica1000
213:
212:
198:
150:
138:
120:
56:
34:
2779:
2778:
2774:
2773:
2772:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2761:deletion review
2750:
2719:Unscintillating
2675:Unscintillating
2661:
2610:Unscintillating
2579:
2543:
2540:
2399:
2387:
2291:
2271:
2181:Unscintillating
2167:
2151:Unscintillating
2142:
2127:
2115:
2086:
2084:
1758:
1684:Unscintillating
1675:
1629:
1562:Unscintillating
1553:
1527:Unscintillating
1505:Unscintillating
1464:—specifically,
1421:
1317:
1305:
1246:MoneyHighStreet
1160:article in the
1130:by Sarah Coles.
1068:
1062:
1040:
1035:, published by
993:
974:
962:
872:
734:
721:
702:
697:
626:
623:
326:
265:
155:
146:
111:
95:
92:
90:
68:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2777:
2775:
2766:
2765:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2742:
2727:
2726:
2708:
2707:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2667:
2666:
2659:
2647:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2620:
2592:
2591:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2552:
2551:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2514:
2498:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2445:
2442:
2427:
2426:
2407:
2406:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2333:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2286:
2285:
2252:Does not meet
2250:
2249:
2248:
2242:
2241:
2231:
2213:
2212:
2195:
2161:
2136:
2099:
2094:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2067:
2027:
2026:
2000:
1999:
1985:
1980:
1979:
1969:New York Times
1937:(a section of
1927:
1926:
1912:
1893:
1858:
1820:
1819:
1784:
1783:
1768:
1767:
1766:unintentional.
1725:
1724:
1702:
1701:
1687:
1673:
1659:
1651:
1650:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1544:
1538:
1537:
1516:
1515:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1477:
1457:
1452:
1451:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1395:
1394:
1379:
1378:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1340:
1286:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1261:
1250:
1240:
1229:
1218:
1208:
1198:
1194:Talking Retail
1188:
1178:
1156:
1145:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1124:
1118:review in the
1110:
1100:
1086:
1085:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1019:
1018:
1001:
982:
981:
952:
951:
948:
945:
942:
939:
936:
933:
930:
926:
925:
910:
891:
890:
871:
870:
869:
868:
861:
856:
849:
842:
837:
832:
829:Marketing Week
825:
818:
811:
796:
795:
794:
730:
729:
711:
655:
634:
611:
557:participants:
551:
441:SwisterTwister
433:
391:
390:
389:
388:
371:
370:
351:
333:
332:
324:
312:
291:
290:
263:
244:
243:
236:
233:
230:
226:
216:
215:
152:
91:
89:
88:
83:
78:
72:
69:
67:
62:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2776:
2764:
2762:
2758:
2753:
2747:
2746:
2741:
2737:
2733:
2729:
2728:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2711:
2710:
2709:
2706:
2702:
2698:
2693:
2690:
2689:
2684:
2680:
2676:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2668:
2665:
2662:
2657:
2653:
2648:
2646:
2643:
2637:
2632:
2628:
2625:
2624:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2607:
2603:
2599:
2596:
2595:
2594:
2593:
2590:
2586:
2585:
2584:
2577:
2574:
2573:
2568:
2564:
2560:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2550:
2547:
2536:
2533:
2532:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2515:
2512:
2508:
2503:
2499:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2480:
2476:
2472:
2471:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2443:
2441:
2438:Clean up per
2437:
2436:
2434:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2405:
2402:
2397:
2394:
2390:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2372:
2368:
2366:
2359:
2355:
2352:
2351:
2346:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2331:
2327:
2322:
2321:
2315:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2296:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2282:
2275:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2255:
2251:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2232:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2215:
2214:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2196:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2173:
2172:
2171:MySupermarket
2165:
2162:
2160:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2147:
2146:MySupermarket
2140:
2137:
2135:
2132:
2130:
2124:
2120:
2117:
2116:
2113:
2110:
2108:
2106:
2105:
2097:
2092:
2089:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2065:
2060:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2043:
2039:
2035:
2034:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2023:
2017:
2016:
2011:
2010:
2005:
2002:
2001:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1981:
1977:
1976:
1971:
1970:
1965:
1964:
1959:
1958:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1929:
1928:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1856:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1826:
1822:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1786:
1785:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1769:
1762:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1744:
1740:
1738:
1733:
1730:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1704:
1703:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1685:
1679:
1674:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1633:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1589:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1557:
1545:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1501:
1498:
1497:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1458:
1454:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1429:
1426:
1424:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1404:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1315:
1312:
1308:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1271:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1137:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1067:
1060:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1042:North America
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
1000:
996:
995:North America
991:
987:
984:
983:
980:
977:
972:
969:
965:
958:
954:
953:
949:
946:
943:
940:
937:
934:
931:
928:
927:
923:
919:
914:
911:
909:
905:
901:
896:
893:
892:
889:
885:
881:
877:
874:
873:
867:
866:
862:
860:
857:
855:
854:
850:
848:
847:
843:
841:
838:
836:
833:
831:
830:
826:
824:
823:
819:
817:
816:
812:
810:
809:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
790:
786:
783:
780:
776:
772:
768:
765:
762:
759:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
740:
737:
736:Find sources:
732:
731:
728:
724:
723:North America
719:
715:
712:
710:
707:
705:
700:
694:
692:
686:
682:
680:
676:
674:
671:
667:
659:
656:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
633:
630:
629:
619:
615:
612:
610:
606:
602:
598:
595:
592:
588:
584:
581:
578:
574:
570:
567:
564:
560:
556:
552:
550:
549:
545:
541:
536:
533:
530:
526:
522:
519:
516:
512:
508:
505:
502:
498:
494:
491:
488:
484:
480:
477:
474:
470:
466:
463:
460:
456:
452:
449:
446:
442:
438:
434:
432:
431:
427:
423:
418:
414:
410:
407:
404:
400:
396:
393:
392:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
365:
361:
360:
355:
352:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
334:
330:
327:
322:
318:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
289:
285:
281:
280:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:
266:
261:
257:
253:
249:
241:
237:
234:
231:
227:
225:
221:
220:
219:
211:
207:
204:
201:
197:
193:
189:
186:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
161:
158:
157:Find sources:
153:
149:
145:
142:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:MySupermarket
94:
93:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
66:
65:MySupermarket
63:
61:
60:
55:
54:Seraphimblade
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2751:
2748:
2722:
2714:
2691:
2650:
2641:
2639:
2634:
2631:Terms of Use
2626:
2604:, including
2581:
2580:
2575:
2534:
2507:WP:CONSENSUS
2501:
2418:
2414:
2392:
2388:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2364:
2361:
2358:Terms of Use
2353:
2329:
2325:
2318:
2302:(5): 20–26.
2299:
2293:
2280:
2254:WP:CORPDEPTH
2233:
2216:
2197:
2170:
2163:
2145:
2138:
2128:
2118:
2103:
2095:
2085:
2063:
2058:
2041:
2037:
2031:
2020:
2013:
2007:
2003:
1973:
1967:
1963:Boston Globe
1961:
1955:
1930:
1896:
1869:
1865:
1845:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1787:
1741:
1734:
1728:
1726:
1714:Dlohcierekim
1705:
1637:
1605:
1586:
1582:
1550:
1541:
1499:
1473:
1469:
1443:Amazon Prime
1422:
1415:
1402:
1362:
1310:
1306:
1257:
1245:
1213:
1203:
1193:
1183:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1161:
1152:
1139:
1119:
1113:
1105:
1094:
1058:
1054:
1027:– Regarding
1024:
1003:
985:
967:
963:
956:
912:
894:
875:
864:
852:
845:
828:
821:
814:
808:The Guardian
807:
798:
797:
784:
778:
770:
763:
757:
751:
745:
735:
717:
716:– Below are
713:
703:
698:
688:
684:
683:the article
678:
665:
663:
661:
657:
636:
622:
613:
593:
579:
565:
538:
531:
525:Juliancolton
517:
503:
489:
483:Lemongirl942
475:
461:
447:
420:
405:
394:
357:
353:
336:
277:
273:
245:
239:
223:
217:
205:
199:
191:
184:
178:
172:
166:
156:
143:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2640:A topic is
2433:Advertising
2274:K.e.coffman
2258:K.e.coffman
2129:-- HighKing
1860:Similarly,
1423:-- HighKing
1212:article in
1192:article in
1182:article in
1033:Book Source
859:Tech Crunch
761:free images
559:Philafrenzy
469:K.e.coffman
252:the history
182:free images
2238:WP:TOOSOON
2177:my sandbox
2104:Ritchie333
2059:and should
1866:end result
1837:authorizes
1367:my sandbox
1244:review in
1204:TechCrunch
1184:TechCrunch
1171:Daily Star
1153:Daily Mail
1104:review in
853:The Grocer
846:The Grocer
799:References
2757:talk page
2732:Syrenka V
2518:Syrenka V
2488:Syrenka V
2462:And from
2337:Syrenka V
2221:Antrocent
2185:Syrenka V
2071:Syrenka V
1989:Syrenka V
1916:Syrenka V
1773:Syrenka V
1691:Syrenka V
1663:Syrenka V
1612:Syrenka V
1481:Syrenka V
1384:Syrenka V
1344:Syrenka V
1290:Syrenka V
1263:The 2015
1252:The book
1242:The 2016
1231:The 2013
1220:The 2013
1210:The 2012
1200:The 2012
1190:The 2016
1180:The 2013
1173:—and the
1158:The 2014
1147:The 2007
1138:The book
1126:The 2016
1102:The 2013
1093:The book
900:Legacypac
880:Dalliance
815:DMG Media
573:CyberXRef
511:Davey2010
497:Mackensen
301:Syrenka V
37:talk page
2759:or in a
2692:Protect.
2642:presumed
2455:instead.
2320:Computer
2295:Computer
2088:Relisted
1972:and the
1878:WP:PROMO
1846:anything
1656:HighKing
1466:WP:SYNTH
1375:WP:PROMO
1214:Campaign
1120:Guardian
865:Campaign
840:ABC News
835:ABC News
637:Comment:
597:contribs
583:contribs
569:contribs
553:Pinging
535:contribs
521:contribs
507:contribs
493:contribs
479:contribs
465:contribs
451:contribs
435:Pinging
409:contribs
141:View log
39:or in a
2627:Comment
2598:Velella
2583:Velella
2475:notable
2466:within
2354:Comment
2164:Comment
2139:Comment
2119:Comment
2055:WP:NPOV
2051:WP:NPOV
2004:Comment
1960:or the
1939:WP:CORP
1931:Comment
1886:WP:CORP
1833:mandate
1808:WP:CORP
1788:Comment
1416:Comment
1175:Express
1167:Express
1162:Express
1066:rewrite
1031:: This
1025:Comment
767:WP refs
755:scholar
714:Comment
691:WP:IDHT
585:), and
523:), and
354:Delete.
337:Comment
188:WP refs
176:scholar
114:protect
109:history
2576:Delete
2544:ASTILY
2535:Delete
2511:WP:BLP
2468:WP:CSD
2464:WP:G11
2395:wister
2391:wister
2270:Hello
2234:Delete
2049:, but
2047:WP:NOT
2042:biased
1984:range.
1947:WP:AUD
1943:WP:AUD
1935:WP:AUD
1905:WP:NOT
1890:WP:COI
1862:WP:NOT
1816:WP:NOT
1806:, and
1804:WP:WEB
1796:WP:NOT
1757:Hello
1706:delete
1616:Rhadow
1336:WP:AUD
1334:, and
1332:WP:NOT
1313:wister
1309:wister
1283:WP:AUD
1281:, and
1279:WP:NOT
1237:WP:AUD
1226:WP:AUD
1082:WP:AUD
1078:WP:NOT
1076:) and
1004:Delete
970:wister
966:wister
922:search
913:Delete
739:Google
666:Delete
645:Cunard
618:WP:TNT
614:Delete
601:Cunard
540:Cunard
422:Cunard
378:Cunard
341:Rhadow
274:sorry,
160:Google
118:delete
2723:topic
2656:Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ
2559:Sionk
2502:agree
2202:Sionk
2036:does
2030:What
1909:m:TOU
1901:m:TOU
1897:could
1855:m:TOU
1850:m:TOU
1842:m:TOU
1829:right
1825:m:TOU
1812:m:TOU
1792:m:TOU
1748:talk
1737:talk
1727:&
1593:talk
1474:other
1328:m:TOU
1275:m:TOU
1258:Chair
1116:2006
1074:m:TOU
918:these
782:JSTOR
743:books
699:Davey
587:Shuki
411:) at
364:talk
321:Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ
284:talk
260:Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ
203:JSTOR
164:books
148:Stats
135:views
127:watch
123:links
16:<
2736:talk
2701:talk
2679:talk
2660:Talk
2614:talk
2602:WP:N
2563:talk
2522:talk
2492:talk
2419:must
2415:must
2400:talk
2341:talk
2330:them
2262:talk
2217:Keep
2206:talk
2198:Keep
2189:talk
2155:talk
2075:talk
1993:talk
1920:talk
1884:and
1882:WP:N
1814:and
1800:WP:N
1777:talk
1718:talk
1695:talk
1667:talk
1643:Aldi
1620:talk
1606:So,
1566:talk
1531:talk
1509:talk
1500:Keep
1485:talk
1447:Aldi
1445:and
1388:talk
1348:talk
1318:talk
1294:talk
1114:2016
1112:The
1057:but
1055:Keep
1012:talk
990:diff
986:Keep
975:talk
904:talk
895:Keep
884:talk
876:Keep
775:FENS
749:news
718:some
704:2010
670:SPAM
658:Keep
649:talk
641:here
627:5969
624:Onel
605:talk
591:talk
577:talk
563:talk
544:talk
529:talk
515:talk
501:talk
487:talk
473:talk
459:talk
445:talk
426:talk
403:talk
395:Keep
382:talk
345:talk
325:Talk
305:talk
264:Talk
248:this
229:ease
196:FENS
170:news
131:logs
105:talk
101:edit
50:keep
2697:Deb
2365:any
2326:how
2304:doi
2038:not
1870:not
1761:DGG
1743:DGG
1732:DGG
1678:DGG
1638:not
1632:DGG
1608:DGG
1588:DGG
1556:DGG
1470:use
992:).
789:TWL
685:was
672:up.
599:).
571:),
509:),
495:),
481:),
467:),
453:),
359:DGG
299:. —
279:DGG
240:any
210:TWL
139:– (
2738:)
2713:I
2703:)
2681:)
2616:)
2565:)
2524:)
2494:)
2470::
2360::
2343:)
2300:43
2298:.
2281:is
2264:)
2227:)
2225:♫♬
2208:)
2191:)
2157:)
2077:)
1995:)
1922:)
1802:,
1779:)
1750:)
1720:)
1712:.
1697:)
1669:)
1622:)
1595:)
1568:)
1533:)
1511:)
1487:)
1390:)
1350:)
1330:,
1296:)
1277:,
1239:.)
1228:.)
1069:}}
1063:{{
1014:)
906:)
886:)
769:)
679:to
660:-
651:)
643:.
607:)
546:)
537:).
428:)
384:)
366:)
347:)
319:.
307:)
286:)
190:)
133:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
52:.
2734:(
2730:—
2699:(
2677:(
2649:'
2612:(
2561:(
2541:F
2520:(
2516:—
2490:(
2425::
2393:T
2389:S
2339:(
2335:—
2310:.
2306::
2276::
2272:@
2260:(
2223:(
2204:(
2187:(
2153:(
2073:(
2069:—
1991:(
1987:—
1918:(
1914:—
1775:(
1771:—
1763::
1759:@
1746:(
1735:(
1716:(
1693:(
1689:—
1680::
1676:@
1665:(
1661:—
1634::
1630:@
1618:(
1591:(
1564:(
1558::
1554:@
1529:(
1507:(
1483:(
1479:—
1386:(
1382:—
1346:(
1342:—
1311:T
1307:S
1292:(
1288:—
1010:(
968:T
964:S
902:(
882:(
793:)
785:·
779:·
771:·
764:·
758:·
752:·
746:·
741:(
733:(
695:–
647:(
603:(
594:·
589:(
580:·
575:(
566:·
561:(
542:(
532:·
527:(
518:·
513:(
504:·
499:(
490:·
485:(
476:·
471:(
462:·
457:(
448:·
443:(
424:(
406:·
401:(
380:(
362:(
343:(
303:(
282:(
214:)
206:·
200:·
192:·
185:·
179:·
173:·
167:·
162:(
154:(
151:)
144:·
137:)
99:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.