Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins

770:, I was very surprised there wasn't already an article about her, I recognise her face very well, though that is perhaps because I'm too often awake at 5am watching see it saw it reruns (and that program apparently doesnt have a page either, so clearly thats not a notability provider). The people who are voting delete do have policy on side. However, if it is deleted, it will definitely, as someone said, be recreated within hours. Which would mean that if it were to be deleted it would need to be salted, which I disagree with as an option at this juncture because more developments might change the situation or blah blah and we shouldnt have to, in that case, rely on busy admins to care, because they don't always. Plus, there's nothing wrong with giving it a couple of days til the attention dies down and the deletion can be cleaner. So 1644:(Anon IP) I never said she was. You're completely missing the point I was making. There are plenty of articles about non-notable people on Knowledge (XXG), many of whom are less notable than Natasha Collins is or was (depending on how you look at it). My reference to the above mentioned porn stars (and to the other actors for that matter) was to make my point. These were just articles I happened to land on in the course of my Wikitravels this (or rther yesterday now) afternoon, and on a different day I may have generated a completely different list of people. 1253:"Knowledge (XXG) considers the historical notability of persons and events, while keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right. While Knowledge (XXG) strives to be comprehensive, the policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view should lead us to contextualize events appropriately, which may preclude a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite a brief appearance in the news." 498:- on the basis that she just about reaches notability (you could easily argue it the other way), but more importantly that we don't know yet about the circumstances or causes of her death, and hence redirecting to Speight sets a legally conclusive precedent which is highly liebelous for the Wiki foundation. If we delete now, it will only get recreated by a Anon. I'd like to see this one re-debated in at least two weeks if not four, when further details will be confirmed by reliable Media and Police sources. Rgds, - 1751:. We let the agreed policies make the decision. In this case I feel that the policies are being too loosely interpreted. Ask yourself, if Collins had not died this week, and she had an article, and it was nominated for deletion, would you all be so vociferously defending it? Would you even care? Probably not, and since everyone dies, just dying does not mean you pass any notability guidelines, because then everyone would be eligible for an article, provided they had died. Footnote in 1552:'s daughter (Cherie being a wee bit more famous than Nathalie). But she still has an article, despite having only appeared in a handful of productions. Admittedly, she's alive and well and in her early 20s, so perhaps this is a different case, and she will hopefully have a long and prosperous career ahead of her. It's still a short article though, so if we're going to apply strict rules to these things, shouldn't we be deleting her until she's more notable? And Nathalie's brother, 1184:, is it because it is another "celebrity". Other than that, a drugs death involving a children's TV presenter is going to create more media attention that a porn actor's death would, why, if you are a parent, would you feel scandalised that a drugs death involves a children's TV presenter. Not to mention that all publicity only concerns her death and nothing before it. 716:"I believe that it's a depressing prospect that sensation lovers are leading an encyclopedia by the nose. Allowing the media to determine what is and isn't notable is a bad joke.... I bet we wouldn't be having this arguement if it was an ugly middle aged man who had been murdered. I think that WP needs to establish a specific guideline - I've no idea how to go about it." 1180:, I do question on those with a keep nomination, are you nominating keep because of the recent drugs death prompted you to google her name and you found this and because it is in a AfD nomination, you decided to vote keep for the sake of it. Ask yourself this, have you heard of her before her death, if no, then ask yourself why are you voting 597:- had not been notable before her death, only reason of notability is because her death involves a children's TV presenter and his subsequent arrest, which will explain why this is seen to be as scandalous. The bottom line to this is I want to point out that this site is not IMDB (she has her own profile, so why not contribute there instead). 1442:. So notable that when she died, the story wasn't "FAMOUS PERSON DIES", it was "KIDS' TV PRESENTER ARRESTED OVER DEATH OF GIRLFRIEND WHO WE THINK WAS A PRESENTER OR AN ACTRESS OR SOMETHING, WE'VE NEVER ACTUALLY HEARD OF HER BUT WE GOOGLED HER AND FOUND A SMALL CV THAT LISTS NON-STARRING CREDITS IN THREE TV SHOWS NOBODY REMEMBERS". Wow, 993:

news story is not finished. We don't know the cause of death and whether there will be any criminal charges resulting from it (to anyone). It would be churlish and disrespectful to try and second guess these outcomes and on this premise we should not make a rash decision to delete the article IMHO.

557:

So they are. My apologies for that. I actually considered creating this article myself when the story first broke, but couldn't find much about her at that stage, so decided I wouldn't. My comments really relate to that. I think it should be kept though - for the time being at least and until further

2240:

Read a copy of yesterday's Daily Express last night. The story is on page five, and is largely about Speight, and the details of the death and police investigation. Of Collins, it says she was a "promising actress". Hmmm. Promising actress. That says to me that she may have been more notable had she

1068:

Unlike Natasha Collins. Actually, I'd be quite happy to see Knowledge (XXG) cover less notable people (I thought of requesting an article on Emma Fitch, for example - Fitch was the woman who did the Kelly Homes tattoo hoax, and from the publicity for that alone, is probably more notable than Natasha

992:

Objection to keeping the article seems to be that Ms Collins was only a minor celebrity in life and that she is only notable as a consequence of her unusual death. I think (plainly speaking without meaning to sound callous) that the combination of "minor celebrity" + "unusual death" = notable. The

2151:

Though you actually make some quite interesting points, they're not particularly relevant here. All we're discussing here is the article on Natasha Collins, and whether it should be deleted or not, not the basic policies of Knowledge (XXG). In this discussion, whether you agree with the policies or

2100:

The irony is that including articles (or to put it another way, preserving information) on people like Natasha Collins, who aren't actually all that famous, or are famous for a week, would actually add real value to the Knowledge (XXG) project. If only Knowledge (XXG) collectively was serious about

1902:

She never worked as a presenter on any national channel. I mean, good grief, if people are determined to keep the article, then so be it, but between poorly sourced allegations of drug abuse and blatantly untrue assertions of her working as a BBC presenter, I do have to wonder at how well informed

2505:

As an anon IP I am of course worthless scum (at least, that's the impression I get from this discussion) but I would nevertheless suggest that the news coverage (re-)establishes notability for Speight, not Collins. The interest in Collins is entirely because she died in Speight's appartment and (I

447:

She wasn't a BBC presenter (the closest she got was being an actress on a children's puzzle programme nine years ago) and the fact that people are discussing her as if she was, and this not even being questioned until now, suggests rather strongly to me that nobody knows who she was, she isn't

1093:

James Dean was already famous before his death, plus he is still notable after his death, and what about Ms Collins, she wasn't notable before her death and I am very doubtful that she will be when Easter comes considering there is nothing memorable about her career. Also this article had been

2056:

TheIslander, I would but they're much the same as the one Popplewick has posted above; articles written only a few hours after her death. BBC News Online referred to her as a "presenter" a couple of days ago, however they often change articles without noting the amendments. In the absence of

969:. Her career lasted less than two years -- a handful of television acting roles have surfaced, that's all. She appears to have done nothing of note since her accident in 2000. Had it not been for the unfortunate circumstances of her death, no one would be requesting an article for her. 2652:

Been coming back here for days reading all the comments and pondering the concept of notability. I just don't think this is quite enough, I think someone needs to be notable beyond the resume of this woman and I have issues with one's greatest notablity being a rather unnotable

1742:

Just because other undeserving articles have not yet been deleted, doesnt mean we have to keep this one until they are; we dont have to delete articles in order of triviality. In all cases such as this, the question is not "is the subject notable?" but "does the subject pass

2129:

and... well, you get the picture. All of these people got massive publicity for a short time but try looking for info on them now and it's a pain in the neck, even with the benefit of the web. Knowledge (XXG) should be trying to fill that knowledge gap, not widening it. -

126:

A short biographical article about a recently deceased person, which was originally nominated for speedy deletion. I really have no opinion on this, but feel that the wider view of the community should be gauged before a decision on whether or not to delete is made

1556:

also has an article, incidentally, and that's even shorter. But these guys have notable parents, and careers worthy of a mention on the IMDB, and Natasha Collins had a (sadly for the wrong reasons right now) notable boyfriend/fiance, and also merited an IMDB

1398:

Other than that, nothing; but she worked as a model and an actrees in several children's tv shows. The fact that an actress in a children's tv show took drugs, to me, guarantees one inherant notability. Unusual circumstances of death is just an add-on.

909:

as an example. She only really rose to prominance because she was a weathergirl on TV-AM, and somebody's daughter. The article concerning her was created following her death in a motoring accident late last year. Where do we draw the line folks? Should

1543:

Unless someone's going to go through deleting all the articles about all the so-called non notable actors/actresses/television presenters, etc - living or deceased. And there are quite a few of these. One I found this afternoon is a biography of

687:- no significant coverage, as per Lucasbfr. Only became notable after death, hence the creation of the page today. Most sources that relate to her previous history are from the current news stories, therefore only notable for this event. 314:

it then the article deserves deletion. This shouldn't be a straw poll about whether we feel sorry for dead people; AfD debates are about the merits of articles based on the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, and currently the article fails them

1560:

Something that concerns me more, however, are the countless articles about porn stars who nobody's heard of (unless they happen to have an unhealthy appetite for those kinds of films). A few examples for you to consider here include

1947:

that programme, she was an actress hired to play a supporting role in that programme. There is no evidence she ever presented a show on national television – mainly because she has never presented a show on national television.

750:

Hey, I don't regard myself as a sensation hunter. I just look for subjects to create articles about is all. Although I didn't create this one, I thought about it - as I would have done had it been a middle aged man.

1702:

You know, that's a great policy, but I believe that that anon was making a point about the fact that notability standards are being lowered to the point that this article should be kept. A point that I agree with.

334:

She had her own individual career separate to that of Mark Speight. This entitles her to the right to her own article. It's like saying if the Queen Elizabeth died, we'd put her onto the Duke of Edinburgh's page.

948:. Whoever proposed this for deletion needs their head testing. There are some exceptional circumstances regarding her death and her breath career is worth mentioning alone. The article simply needs improvement. 291:

I feel she was an independent person and her death may have nothing to do with her boyfriend, she was a presenter of note and people will look her up, admittedly largely because of her untimely demise.

719: 185:

That's an argument for renaming the article and refocusing the topic to "Death of Natasha Collins", not deleting it outright. Much of the content of this article would be usable for either topic.

1838:

The story of her death has certainly received a lot of media coverage - it was one of the main stories on Sky yesterday. I'd say therefore that she was noteworthy, so the article should be kept.

532:

As the story only broke this morning, it is unlikely that a Google search would throw up much just now. Surely the test of her notability will be if there is an obituary in tomorrow's Times.

448:

notable in the Knowledge (XXG) sense and the article should therefore be deleted. But hey, it's your own stupid fault for having such restrictive rules on notability in the first place. - Q4

235:

on imdb, I get plenty of hits for each show they presented. Mmm, "Natasha Collins" bbc -death -police in google shows no significant English results. I don't see significant coverage. --

2506:

regret to say) nothing to do with Collins' own notability. If you want an indication of how notable Collins was, look at how much coverage her road accident got at the time: none. -

1094:

created following her death, so in this case I don't this article will ever survive and I don't think the notability requirements should be lowered as we got too many junk articles.

2488:. The purely subjective assertions of non-notability advanced by editors supporting deletion of this article fail to outweigh the presumption of notability established via the 119: 661:

Who is she? A minor actress, that's it. Just because she's dead, it doesn't make her famous. Just as it's inappropriate to list dead animals, no matter how 'famous' they are.

2566:

You may have been in it for 10 seconds, but this women was co-star for a year. Plus she had a few other roles that you demonstrated. I don't see any question for deletion of

833:

if and only if we can show that her life was more notable than her death (no disrespect to her but people are murdered all the time, doesn't in itself make her notable). •

270:

per above. Being the girlfriend of someone notable does not transfer notability. However, it would be very useful to have a redirect pointing to the section about her in

2038:

as co-presenter. However, this was an early story, part of the rush to get a headline out. Calmer heads have since adopted phrases such as "appeared alongside him". --

1211: 711: 2258:

She may have been a promising actress way back when, before the car accident she was in in 2000/2001. That promise was not fulfilled in the years after that. --

2524:

You are not worthless scum, and we are sorry you feel you've been treated that way. Anyway, she did present corporate videos and act as See in See It, Saw It.

1879:

Presenter on a national BBC channel with a lot of reliable sources. Many bio articles are only created when someone dies; I guess that's when the RSs pop up.

1112:

Ahem, what is wrong with creating articles following one's death? People then start noticing that person. Evebn if she wasn't famous during her life, she was

2584:

Five seconds actually. And my point is that I am just a Joe Average who happened to appear on television. So was Collins really, and so was Kate Crossley.

845:

but expand. It looks like a reasonable case can be made to say she should have had a page anyhow, so let's make the page she should have had while alive.--

2179:

Back to the subject in hand, just to make it crystal clear for the closing sysop, people keep stating that she was a national TV presenter on the BBC.

905:

Other articles have been created following a person's death, and I don't seem to recall all this fuss over those. I want to draw people's attention to

2550:, or someone will remind me of the fact. I once appeared in an Open University documentary for about five seconds. Perhaps I should have an article. 2667:

Everyone's welcome to their opinion, but you don't make policy. Her resume seems to meet WP:BIO as per above John254's comment and mine further up.

2320:- at least five of the anon IPs I've highlighted in the conversation above have no edits save those to this page. Just something to bear in mind... 635:

But hold off on the adding of pointless speculation until the facts are known, rather than copy & paste from BBC news just for the sake of it.

1360:

She worked as a TV presenter, which I see as notable. Beside that, there's her death, which is covered by many sources. But she did do other work.

572:

There isn't an obituary, although her death is reported on page 5. I'd still like to see this article kept though, for the reasons I stated above.

52:. She was not notable, her death was a notable fact in the life of already notable Mark Speight though. This close is obviously not a votecount... 1577:, and a whole lot more besides. Now tell me how they're famous (other than for starring in blue movies), and whether we should be keeping them. 1208:"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." 2287: 1599:. Decisions like that are the exact reason we make specific notability guidelines. If they fail such tests then the articles will be deleted 163:- people known only for one event. The only references here relate to her death; there's no evidence presented of notability outside of it. 915: 1281:

Good point - I hadn't remembered that. That brings into question the consistency of previous Afds. I'm going to raise the whole issue on

2627: 2507: 2304: 1725: 1685: 1645: 1578: 1055: 886: 668: 92: 87: 1489: 1447: 1413:

We don't even know that she has taken drugs. That's purely speculative until the toxicologist report comes through. Still notable? --

1347: 1164: 1074: 642: 96: 1282: 17: 2152:

not is more or less irrelevant; this is a forum to state whether you thik the article in question abides by those policies or not.

2105:. It's so tied to the "old media" idea of what an encyclopedia is, that it systematically rejects the very advantages that that an 79: 1724:

Thank you. That's exactly the point I was making, though I could have been a little more concise in the way I made it, I guess.

2421: 1012:

as tv presenter. Her career, while short, existed. Had she lived longer, she may have been even more notable than she is now.

1300: 1229: 737: 1438:

How notable is she? So enormously notable that when she had the accident that effectively ended her career seven years ago,

1925:

for two years. BBC One is a national channel that is run by the BBC, hence the repeated use of the phrase "BBC presenter".

1666:. Other than that, the porn stuff is off topic for this discussion, which is only intended to deal with the one article. -- 2466: 1663: 1512:(answer to Popplewick) OK, fine have it your way. I still think she took drugs, but please see the rest of my arguement. 693: 2759: 2598:

Not really; she appaeraed in three notable tv shows, the co-star of one. That, besides her death, seems notable to me.

36: 2065:

but currently the only notability she seems to have is dying. I also suggest not redirecting to the Speight article.

2365:

is probably going too far. Especially as it seems to have been created by someone who doesn't realise that See was

2417: 2122: 914:

be deleted simply because her life was cut short, and she didn't get to achieve as much as she might? I think not.

258: 2470: 2672: 2603: 2575: 2529: 2283: 2222: 1803: 1708: 1629: 1521: 1404: 1365: 1121: 1017: 879:

the page was only created after her death. if she were notable for her life it would have been created earlier

486: 2758:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2708: 2484:

clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this person pursuant to the criteria established in the

821: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

1600: 919: 722:, it would be interesting to see how consistent the WP procedures are over all the similar instances. -- John 310:. I don't thik it's unlikely she's notable if she was an "actor and BBC presenter", but if nobody is going to 2589: 2555: 2511: 2400: 2395:. He's probably a bit more notable than Natasha Collins and Kate Crossley, but even so. Where does this end? 2352: 2308: 2246: 2126: 1785: 1780:

might be useful, but as she will probably have been forgotten in a few weeks, I guess even that's pointless.

1059: 890: 672: 2712: 2695: 2691: 2676: 2662: 2658: 2631: 2623: 2607: 2593: 2579: 2559: 2533: 2515: 2496: 2442: 2438: 2425: 2404: 2386: 2356: 2335: 2312: 2267: 2250: 2226: 2202: 2167: 2139: 2074: 2047: 2021: 1993: 1975: 1957: 1934: 1912: 1893: 1869: 1856:

I'd describe that story as being the story of Speight's arrest, not the story of her death. If she had been

1847: 1828: 1807: 1789: 1764: 1733: 1729: 1712: 1693: 1689: 1675: 1653: 1649: 1633: 1612: 1586: 1582: 1525: 1497: 1493: 1483: 1455: 1451: 1422: 1408: 1391: 1369: 1355: 1351: 1336: 1305: 1264: 1234: 1193: 1168: 1148: 1125: 1103: 1082: 1078: 1063: 1040: 1021: 1002: 982: 957: 940: 923: 894: 871: 854: 837: 825: 804: 783: 760: 742: 696: 676: 650: 646: 625: 606: 581: 567: 552: 541: 524: 507: 490: 473: 442: 438: 415: 398: 362: 344: 324: 301: 283: 262: 241: 226: 212: 189: 172: 154: 136: 61: 2615: 2489: 2485: 2451: 2275: 1203: 1160: 882: 813: 707: 664: 638: 2686:

Ownlee famoos 4 been ded, of cours theres the paper dead secrtion of those who wan 2 b famoos 4 beng ded.

374:

She had her own individual career - which wasn't notable enough to get her a page before she passed on. --

2103:

WE decide what's notable and sucks boo to you if you want to know anything WE don't deem important enough

2687: 2619: 2585: 2551: 2396: 2348: 2242: 1781: 1189: 1099: 602: 254: 1574: 2321: 2188: 2153: 2007: 1469: 1322: 297: 2704: 2668: 2599: 2571: 2525: 2279: 2263: 2218: 2043: 1989: 1953: 1908: 1799: 1704: 1671: 1625: 1517: 1418: 1400: 1387: 1361: 1260: 1255:

Despite coverage of her death, she has not become a suitable subject for an encyclopaedia article. --

1117: 1013: 978: 482: 424: 375: 340: 83: 2732: 2378: 1570: 846: 353:

She had a career so that entitles her to her own article? That covers every worker in the world ...

2567: 2547: 2382: 2362: 1843: 850: 817: 503: 752: 573: 559: 533: 516: 2654: 2434: 2392: 1865: 1760: 1608: 1294: 1223: 1144: 953: 779: 731: 688: 621: 429: 320: 293: 279: 168: 128: 2002:

Brad, care to share these sources with the rest of us? We seem to be having trouble finding any

1465: 970: 160: 2031: 1798:

Notable, but not famous. Until her death. Had she not died perhaps she would have been famous.

1562: 1889: 1621: 1036: 756: 577: 563: 537: 520: 411: 222: 150: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

1596: 1824: 1603:. Thus, because Natasha Collins was not a porn star (as far as we know), that is off topic. 1185: 1095: 998: 936: 906: 800: 598: 132: 1248: 2481: 2477: 2259: 2114: 2039: 1985: 1949: 1904: 1667: 1566: 1545: 1414: 1383: 1256: 974: 911: 867: 468: 336: 75: 67: 1748: 1488:

I wasn't shouting, I was imitating a newspaper headline. Strewth. Why do I even bother? -

2344: 2070: 1971: 1930: 1839: 834: 499: 406:

to Speight's article. She's only really notable for being some guy's dead girlfriend.

358: 57: 1744: 2570:, who functioned as See following Collins' departure and little else. But something. 1861: 1756: 1604: 1549: 1346:

Perhaps those saying that her career was notable could explain what she actually did.

1288: 1217: 1140: 949: 775: 725: 617: 547: 316: 275: 236: 207: 164: 206:, I don't see much notability asserted here by herself, IMDb only lists 2 shows. -- 2543: 2493: 2135: 1966:

Is it right to say that she didn't "present" it when reliable sources say she did?

1880: 1777: 1752: 1073:, provided that this set a precedent for the lowering of notability requirements. - 1032: 966: 546:

In fact this is the contrary, 100% of the google hits are related to her death. --

455: 407: 271: 218: 202: 186: 146: 49: 1139:, her death has made the national headlines in the UK, so she has some notoriety.( 862:

Done quite enough in her career to be listed, untimely death is beside the point.

113: 1210:. As a result of her death, she has, therefore she is. Confirmed by previous Afd 1820: 1776:

She wasn't really that notable, so why have an article about her? A redirect to

1684:(Anon IP) Sure, but I'm probably not the only one who should be directed there. 1553: 994: 932: 796: 2361:

That seems non-controversial - a popular show in its day. However, a page for

2118: 1051: 863: 462: 2542:

And really did little else apart from that. Oh, I mustn't forget, she was in

1860:

found dead in the apartment of Joe Average, it wouldnt have made sky news...

2214: 2066: 1967: 1926: 1069:

Collins ever was), but I don't think it's going to happen. My vote would be

354: 53: 2209:

She appeared in three TV shows, and presented corporate videos to the BBC.

2183:. They also state that she took drugs, which apparently makes her notable. 1819:

She may be dead but the story has not yet ended. Possible public interest.

217:

Her notability is as a BBC TV presenter, which isn't really IMDB's area. --

2101:

being a repository of human knowledge, rather than its actual attitude of

2733:"Children's TV presenter arrested on suspicion of his fiancee's murder" 2131: 1922: 232: 2217:. Please see this ref, closing admin, before you delete this article: 2241:

lived and had more roles, but at the time of her death, she was not.

816:" how was this ever considered for a speedy deletion is beyond me. 1620:

that guideline is extremely low. Since there are no guidelines for

1157:

she is obviously notable as she is in the papers and on the news

454:: I believe this entry meets notability requirements. Agree with 2752:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

1382:

What has she presented (other than corporate videos, I mean)? --

1054:

starred in only three films before his untimely death in 1955.

1662:

I believe someone's supposed to point you towards this essay:

2057:

permanent sources saying she was a presenter, I'll go with a

714:. That's the Knowledge (XXG) line, but as I've said before - 2433:

Her death has received much attention in the British media.

2006:

sources that state she was a national television presenter.

2347:

article today. Just thought it was worth mentioning this.

1921:

She co-presented "See It, Saw It", which was broadcast on

1321:

per Willirennen's comments directly above. Very well put.

2465:

to be notable if it has received significant coverage in

2703:, to reming everybody that this si not a memorial site. 791:

People might want to keep an eye on the article as the

109: 105: 101: 2109:

encyclopedia project ought to embrace. It could, and

1747:?". For us to decide whether a subject is notable is 1755:, who is not even particularly significant himself. 718:. Topically there's another similar debate going on 145:

undeniably notable for her life if not her death. --

39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1212:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Emily Sander 712:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Emily Sander 710:, consistent with the conclusions reached here - 2762:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2416:- Seems notable both for her life and death. -- 1597:the notability guidelines for adult movie stars 2185:This has yet to be proved one way or the other 1464:Err, would you mind not shouting please? See 8: 2377:. (Guess what the other one was called?) - 1548:. Who's she? I hear you ask. Well, she's 2343:I see somebody has seen fit to create a 2724: 159:Her notability is easily deniable. See 2480:in multiple reliable sources cited in 1283:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 931:per above. Needs expansion, though. 24: 2476:The extensive media coverage of 2213:, unless you want to contradict 2211:That makes your point irrelevant 2612:U wil call eNythin "noptaBLE" 2303:I think she is important enough 2272:She appeared in three TV shows 1624:almost every one gets deleted. 1595:We keep them because they pass 1903:many of these comments are. -- 1031:. She was a notable person. -- 1: 2123:David Martin (murder suspect) 965:to an appropriate section of 2713:00:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 2696:00:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 2632:01:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 2608:00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 2594:00:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 2580:00:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 2560:23:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC) 2492:through objective evidence. 2490:general notability guideline 2486:general notability guideline 2452:general notability guideline 2034:, has described her role on 1984:It is when they're wrong. -- 1440:it didn't even make the news 62:12:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 2677:21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2663:05:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2534:21:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2516:10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2497:02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 2443:16:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 2426:23:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 2405:20:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 2387:18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC) 2357:20:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2336:17:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2313:13:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2268:12:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2251:11:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2227:23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC) 2203:11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2168:11:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2140:09:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2075:17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2048:14:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 2022:13:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1994:13:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1976:12:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1958:11:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1935:11:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1913:08:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1894:23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1870:23:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1848:21:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1829:21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1808:19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1790:19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1765:23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1734:20:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1713:19:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1694:19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1676:19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1654:00:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1634:01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC) 1613:23:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1587:18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1526:18:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1498:20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1484:18:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1456:17:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1423:17:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1409:16:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1392:16:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1370:16:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1356:15:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1337:14:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1306:20:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1265:15:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1235:15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1194:13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1149:11:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1126:13:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1104:13:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1083:11:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1064:09:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1041:02:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1022:02:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 1003:01:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 983:23:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 958:22:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 941:21:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 924:21:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 895:21:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 872:20:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 855:20:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 838:19:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 826:19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 805:19:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 793:afd notice had been removed 784:19:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 761:19:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 743:19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 697:19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 677:18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 651:17:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 626:17:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 607:15:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 582:11:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC) 568:17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 553:17:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 542:15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 525:15:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 508:15:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 491:14:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 474:14:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 443:14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 416:13:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 399:13:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 363:14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 345:13:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 325:13:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 302:13:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 284:13:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 263:13:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 242:13:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 227:13:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 213:12:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 190:20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC) 173:13:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 155:12:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 137:12:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC) 2779: 2482:Natasha_Collins#References 2030:At least one news source, 1204:Knowledge (XXG):Notability 616:As per most of the above. 558:details become available. 1116:(there's a differences). 306:But her notability isn't 2755:Please do not modify it. 2061:-- she was the "See" of 1249:Knowledge (XXG):NOT#NEWS 1171:) 12:26, 5 January 2008 32:Please do not modify it. 2391:There's also a page on 2290:) 23:37, 7 January 2008 2127:Steven and Paul Cheatle 481:to Speight's article. 2475: 2113:include articles like 2455: 2418:Counter-revolutionary 2318:Note to closing admin 1745:notability guidelines 1178:Comment on above lot 231:Ow ok, every time I 2735:. Times. 2008-01-05 2369:jester rather than 1664:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 253:Same as Dweller. -- 46:Delete and Redirect 2450:Knowledge (XXG)'s 2634: 2618:comment added by 2291: 2278:comment added by 1749:original research 1722:Comment (Anon IP) 1622:supercentenarians 1575:Samantha Sterlyng 1172: 1163:comment added by 897: 885:comment added by 803: 679: 667:comment added by 653: 641:comment added by 2770: 2757: 2744: 2743: 2741: 2740: 2729: 2613: 2467:reliable sources 2333: 2327: 2273: 2200: 2194: 2165: 2159: 2019: 2013: 1943:No, she did not 1887: 1481: 1475: 1446:notable then. - 1344:Delete (Anon IP) 1334: 1328: 1304: 1299: 1293: 1233: 1228: 1222: 1158: 907:Trish Williamson 880: 877:delete (Anon IP) 799: 741: 736: 730: 691: 662: 659:Delete (Anon IP) 636: 550: 472: 434: 395: 393: 391: 389: 387: 255:Chandlerjoeyross 239: 210: 117: 99: 44:The result was. 34: 2778: 2777: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2760:deletion review 2753: 2748: 2747: 2738: 2736: 2731: 2730: 2726: 2705:Knock-Off Nigel 2669:Editorofthewiki 2600:Editorofthewiki 2572:Editorofthewiki 2526:Editorofthewiki 2478:Natasha Collins 2473:of the subject. 2329: 2328: 2323: 2280:Editorofthewiki 2219:Editorofthewiki 2196: 2195: 2190: 2161: 2160: 2155: 2115:Natasha Collins 2015: 2014: 2009: 1881: 1800:Editorofthewiki 1705:Editorofthewiki 1626:Editorofthewiki 1567:Josephine James 1546:Nathalie Lunghi 1518:Editorofthewiki 1477: 1476: 1471: 1401:Editorofthewiki 1362:Editorofthewiki 1330: 1329: 1324: 1297: 1291: 1286: 1226: 1220: 1215: 1118:Editorofthewiki 1014:Editorofthewiki 912:Natasha Collins 734: 728: 723: 689: 548: 459: 430: 425:User:Endlessdan 385: 383: 381: 379: 377: 237: 233:check a TV Host 208: 90: 76:Natasha Collins 74: 71: 68:Natasha Collins 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2776: 2774: 2765: 2764: 2746: 2745: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2698: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2537: 2536: 2519: 2518: 2500: 2499: 2445: 2428: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2345:See It, Saw It 2338: 2322: 2315: 2301:Keep (Anon IP) 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2189: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2154: 2143: 2142: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2063:See It, Saw It 2051: 2050: 2025: 2024: 2008: 1997: 1996: 1979: 1978: 1961: 1960: 1938: 1937: 1916: 1915: 1897: 1896: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1851: 1850: 1832: 1831: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1793: 1792: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1737: 1736: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1697: 1696: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1657: 1656: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1590: 1589: 1571:Stephanie Bews 1558: 1541:Keep (Anon IP) 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1514:Still notable? 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1470: 1459: 1458: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1395: 1394: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1340: 1339: 1323: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1285:page. -- John 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1197: 1196: 1174: 1173: 1155:Keep (Anon IP) 1152: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1107: 1106: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1048:Keep (Anon IP) 1044: 1043: 1025: 1024: 1006: 1005: 986: 985: 960: 943: 926: 916:86.147.219.233 903:Keep (Anon IP) 899: 898: 874: 857: 840: 828: 818:Coccyx Bloccyx 807: 786: 765: 764: 763: 700: 699: 681: 680: 655: 654: 633:Keep (Anon IP) 629: 628: 610: 609: 592: 591: 590: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 515:per Dweller - 510: 493: 476: 449: 445: 418: 401: 368: 367: 366: 365: 348: 347: 329: 328: 327: 286: 265: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 178: 177: 176: 175: 124: 123: 70: 65: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2775: 2763: 2761: 2756: 2750: 2749: 2734: 2728: 2725: 2718: 2717: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2699: 2697: 2693: 2689: 2688:Charley Uchea 2685: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2655:OneHappyHusky 2651: 2648: 2647: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2620:Charley Uchea 2617: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2586:Brett Leaford 2583: 2582: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2568:Kate Crossley 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2552:Brett Leaford 2549: 2548:Real Women II 2545: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508:88.109.118.83 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2453: 2449: 2446: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2435:LuciferMorgan 2432: 2429: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2412: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397:Brett Leaford 2394: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375:See it Saw it 2372: 2368: 2364: 2363:Kate Crossley 2360: 2359: 2358: 2354: 2350: 2349:Brett Leaford 2346: 2342: 2339: 2337: 2334: 2332: 2326: 2319: 2316: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2305:84.134.93.225 2302: 2299: 2298: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2243:Brett Leaford 2239: 2236: 2235: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2201: 2199: 2193: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2175: 2174: 2169: 2166: 2164: 2158: 2150: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2141: 2137: 2133: 2128: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2099: 2096: 2095: 2076: 2072: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2036:See It Saw It 2033: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2026: 2023: 2020: 2018: 2012: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1891: 1888: 1885: 1878: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1834: 1833: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1815: 1814: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1791: 1787: 1783: 1782:Brett Leaford 1779: 1775: 1772: 1771: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1746: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1726:217.43.194.18 1723: 1720: 1719: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686:217.43.194.18 1683: 1682: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1646:217.43.194.18 1643: 1642: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1579:217.43.194.18 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1550:Cherie Lunghi 1547: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1482: 1480: 1474: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1457: 1453: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1434: 1433: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1353: 1349: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1338: 1335: 1333: 1327: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1307: 1302: 1296: 1290: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1236: 1231: 1225: 1219: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1176: 1175: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1135: 1134: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1056:81.152.144.31 1053: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1026: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1008: 1007: 1004: 1000: 996: 991: 988: 987: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 961: 959: 955: 951: 947: 944: 942: 938: 934: 930: 927: 925: 921: 917: 913: 908: 904: 901: 900: 896: 892: 888: 887:86.154.14.123 884: 878: 875: 873: 869: 865: 861: 858: 856: 852: 848: 844: 841: 839: 836: 832: 829: 827: 823: 819: 815: 814:WP:NOTABILITY 811: 808: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 787: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 766: 762: 758: 754: 749: 746: 745: 744: 739: 733: 727: 721: 717: 713: 709: 708:WP:NOTABILITY 705: 702: 701: 698: 695: 692: 686: 683: 682: 678: 674: 670: 669:86.144.50.159 666: 660: 657: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 634: 631: 630: 627: 623: 619: 615: 612: 611: 608: 604: 600: 596: 593: 583: 579: 575: 571: 570: 569: 565: 561: 556: 555: 554: 551: 545: 544: 543: 539: 535: 531: 528: 527: 526: 522: 518: 514: 511: 509: 505: 501: 497: 494: 492: 488: 484: 480: 477: 475: 470: 466: 464: 458:on this one. 457: 453: 450: 446: 444: 440: 436: 435: 433: 432:Rodhullandemu 426: 422: 419: 417: 413: 409: 405: 402: 400: 397: 396: 373: 370: 369: 364: 360: 356: 352: 351: 350: 349: 346: 342: 338: 337:CycloneNimrod 333: 330: 326: 322: 318: 313: 309: 305: 304: 303: 299: 295: 290: 287: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 266: 264: 260: 256: 252: 249: 243: 240: 234: 230: 229: 228: 224: 220: 216: 215: 214: 211: 205: 204: 199: 198: 191: 188: 184: 183: 182: 181: 180: 179: 174: 170: 166: 162: 158: 157: 156: 152: 148: 144: 141: 140: 139: 138: 134: 130: 121: 115: 111: 107: 103: 98: 94: 89: 85: 81: 77: 73: 72: 69: 66: 64: 63: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 2754: 2751: 2737:. Retrieved 2727: 2700: 2683: 2649: 2544:10th Kingdom 2462: 2458: 2456: 2447: 2430: 2413: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2340: 2330: 2324: 2317: 2300: 2255: 2237: 2210: 2197: 2191: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2162: 2156: 2148: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2097: 2062: 2058: 2035: 2016: 2010: 2003: 1944: 1890: 1883: 1876: 1857: 1835: 1816: 1778:Mark Speight 1773: 1753:Mark Speight 1721: 1617: 1540: 1513: 1490:88.109.27.53 1478: 1472: 1448:88.109.27.53 1443: 1439: 1435: 1348:78.148.55.81 1343: 1331: 1325: 1318: 1252: 1207: 1181: 1177: 1165:90.241.160.2 1154: 1136: 1113: 1075:88.109.27.53 1070: 1047: 1028: 1009: 989: 967:Mark Speight 962: 945: 928: 902: 876: 859: 842: 830: 809: 792: 788: 771: 767: 747: 715: 703: 684: 658: 643:62.56.84.157 632: 613: 594: 529: 512: 495: 478: 461: 451: 431: 428: 420: 403: 376: 371: 331: 311: 307: 288: 272:Mark Speight 267: 250: 203:Mark Speight 201:Redirect to 200: 142: 125: 50:Mark Speight 45: 43: 31: 28: 2614:—Preceding 2471:independent 2454:states that 2274:—Preceding 2181:She was not 2059:weak delete 1858:murdered by 1601:as and when 1554:Rowan Joffe 1186:Willirennen 1159:—Preceding 1096:Willirennen 973:applies. -- 881:—Preceding 663:—Preceding 637:—Preceding 599:Willirennen 483:Chris (クリス) 308:established 274:'s article 2739:2008-01-05 2719:References 2393:Philip Fox 2373:jester in 2260:Popplewick 2119:Emma Fitch 2040:Popplewick 1986:Popplewick 1950:Popplewick 1905:Popplewick 1668:Popplewick 1415:Popplewick 1384:Popplewick 1257:Popplewick 1052:James Dean 1050:Remember, 975:Popplewick 2469:that are 2379:PinkEllie 2215:The Times 1840:Paul20070 1563:Elen Cole 1436:(Anon IP) 950:Tom Green 847:Nickpheas 772:weak keep 500:Trident13 496:Weak Keep 2628:contribs 2616:unsigned 2463:presumed 2331:Islander 2288:contribs 2276:unsigned 2198:Islander 2163:Islander 2032:Sky News 2017:Islander 2004:reliable 1862:Jdcooper 1757:Jdcooper 1605:Jdcooper 1479:Islander 1466:WP:CIVIL 1332:Islander 1301:Contribs 1289:Daytona2 1230:Contribs 1218:Daytona2 1214:-- John 1161:unsigned 1141:A. Carty 971:WP:BIO1E 963:Redirect 883:unsigned 776:Jdcooper 738:Contribs 726:Daytona2 665:unsigned 639:unsigned 618:Tilefish 549:lucasbfr 479:Redirect 404:Redirect 317:TheBilly 276:TheBilly 268:Redirect 238:lucasbfr 209:lucasbfr 165:TheBilly 161:WP:BIO1E 120:View log 2494:John254 2341:Comment 2256:Comment 2238:Comment 2177:Comment 2149:Comment 2098:Comment 1945:present 1923:BBC One 1618:Comment 1114:notable 1033:Paukrus 789:Comment 768:Comment 753:Brochco 748:Comment 574:Brochco 560:Brochco 534:Brochco 530:Comment 517:Brochco 456:Dweller 408:Lugnuts 219:Dweller 187:John254 147:Dweller 93:protect 88:history 2701:Delete 2684:Delete 2653:death. 2650:Delete 2125:, and 2121:, and 2117:, and 2111:should 2107:online 1821:Triwbe 1774:Delete 1557:entry. 1444:really 1319:Delete 995:Rrsmac 933:D.M.N. 835:Anakin 797:Hiding 685:Delete 595:Delete 421:Delete 372:Delete 294:Kateab 129:Egdirf 97:delete 2459:topic 1516:Yes. 1247:From 864:Paste 812:per " 463:Jza84 312:prove 114:views 106:watch 102:links 16:< 2709:talk 2692:talk 2673:talk 2659:talk 2624:talk 2604:talk 2590:talk 2576:talk 2556:talk 2546:and 2530:talk 2512:talk 2448:Keep 2439:talk 2431:Keep 2422:talk 2414:Keep 2401:talk 2383:talk 2353:talk 2309:talk 2284:talk 2264:talk 2247:talk 2223:talk 2136:talk 2071:talk 2067:Brad 2044:talk 1990:talk 1972:talk 1968:Brad 1954:talk 1931:talk 1927:Brad 1909:talk 1882:The 1877:Keep 1866:talk 1844:talk 1836:Keep 1825:talk 1817:Keep 1804:talk 1786:talk 1761:talk 1730:talk 1709:talk 1690:talk 1672:talk 1650:talk 1630:talk 1609:talk 1583:talk 1522:talk 1494:talk 1452:talk 1419:talk 1405:talk 1388:talk 1366:talk 1352:talk 1295:Talk 1261:talk 1224:Talk 1202:See 1190:talk 1182:keep 1169:talk 1145:talk 1137:Keep 1122:talk 1100:talk 1079:talk 1071:keep 1060:talk 1037:talk 1029:Keep 1018:talk 1010:Keep 999:talk 990:Keep 979:talk 954:talk 946:Keep 937:talk 929:Keep 920:talk 891:talk 868:talk 860:Keep 851:talk 843:Keep 831:Keep 822:talk 810:Keep 780:talk 757:talk 732:Talk 720:here 706:per 704:Keep 673:talk 647:talk 622:talk 614:Keep 603:talk 578:talk 564:talk 538:talk 521:talk 513:Keep 504:talk 487:talk 469:talk 452:Keep 439:Talk 423:per 412:talk 359:talk 355:WWGB 341:talk 332:Keep 321:talk 298:talk 289:Keep 280:talk 259:talk 251:Keep 223:talk 169:talk 151:talk 143:Keep 133:talk 110:logs 84:talk 80:edit 58:talk 54:Fram 2461:is 2371:the 2325:The 2192:The 2157:The 2011:The 1473:The 1326:The 460:-- 118:– ( 48:to 2711:) 2694:) 2675:) 2661:) 2630:) 2626:• 2606:) 2592:) 2578:) 2558:) 2532:) 2514:) 2457:A 2441:) 2424:) 2403:) 2385:) 2355:) 2311:) 2286:• 2266:) 2249:) 2225:) 2187:. 2138:) 2132:Q4 2073:) 2046:) 1992:) 1974:) 1956:) 1948:-- 1933:) 1911:) 1884:JP 1868:) 1846:) 1827:) 1806:) 1788:) 1763:) 1732:) 1711:) 1692:) 1674:) 1652:) 1632:) 1611:) 1585:) 1573:, 1569:, 1565:, 1524:) 1496:) 1468:. 1454:) 1421:) 1407:) 1390:) 1368:) 1354:) 1263:) 1251:- 1206:- 1192:) 1147:) 1124:) 1102:) 1081:) 1062:) 1039:) 1020:) 1001:) 981:) 956:) 939:) 922:) 893:) 870:) 853:) 824:) 795:. 782:) 774:. 759:) 690:Rt 675:) 649:) 624:) 605:) 580:) 566:) 540:) 523:) 506:) 489:) 441:) 427:-- 414:) 386:es 361:) 343:) 323:) 300:) 282:) 261:) 225:) 171:) 153:) 135:) 112:| 108:| 104:| 100:| 95:| 91:| 86:| 82:| 60:) 2742:. 2707:( 2690:( 2671:( 2657:( 2622:( 2602:( 2588:( 2574:( 2554:( 2528:( 2510:( 2437:( 2420:( 2399:( 2381:( 2367:a 2351:( 2307:( 2282:( 2262:( 2245:( 2221:( 2134:( 2069:( 2042:( 1988:( 1970:( 1952:( 1929:( 1907:( 1886:S 1864:( 1842:( 1823:( 1802:( 1784:( 1759:( 1728:( 1707:( 1688:( 1670:( 1648:( 1628:( 1607:( 1581:( 1520:( 1492:( 1450:( 1417:( 1403:( 1386:( 1364:( 1350:( 1303:) 1298:· 1292:· 1287:( 1259:( 1232:) 1227:· 1221:· 1216:( 1188:( 1167:( 1151:) 1143:( 1120:( 1098:( 1077:( 1058:( 1035:( 1016:( 997:( 977:( 952:( 935:( 918:( 889:( 866:( 849:( 820:( 801:T 778:( 755:( 740:) 735:· 729:· 724:( 694:. 671:( 645:( 620:( 601:( 576:( 562:( 536:( 519:( 502:( 485:( 471:) 467:( 465:· 437:( 410:( 394:n 392:a 390:D 388:s 384:l 382:d 380:n 378:E 357:( 339:( 319:( 296:( 278:( 257:( 221:( 167:( 149:( 131:( 122:) 116:) 78:( 56:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins - Knowledge (XXG)

Index