685:
applies to some of the citations: self-published sources may be used as sources of information about themselves so long as they do not involve claims about third parties. In such cases the subject is Hagger, not a third party. Some of the newspaper articles about the historic house Hagger once ran (please note yet again, not since 2004) are primarily about the books, for example one of the several two-page spreads âOverlord of the Manorâ has pictures of two early volumes of
Overlord and three columns about the work. Hagger can sell 10,000 in US hardback and give 25 live radio interviews to the US, and his books are in translation in Russian, Portuguese, Spanish and other languages. The Polish version of The Syndicate was received last week. Hundreds of copies of The Secret Founding of America are in libraries. Hagger is not ignored. The sources include reviews of his writings. His main philosophy work did not come out until 2009 and now people have had a chance to read it requests are coming in for talks. Fladrif gives a sweeping and misleading impression of Hagger on the strength of one trawl and does not mention the million internet results for less than a quarter of his books, more than 106,000 results for The Syndicate and 323,000 results for the Secret Founding of America â totals that hardly suggest being ignored. Spartaz reinstated this article, and the facts suggest that it is not all as cut and dried as Fladrif implies.
331:
worksâ, they are all third-party. At least two of the spas were vandals. The reason I had to self-identify to WP was to get the vandal tag unjustifiably applied to me lifted. For the last month DC seems to have been on a one-man mission to delete Hagger. Is this how WP administrators normally conduct themselves? I was led to believe that WP was a fair-minded forum. In his first comment DC says that the references were not seen by
Spartaz before closure, but this is not true, they were. They were posted at 11.44 on 13 January and the new article uploaded at the same time, and Spartaz closed at 18.38, having seen them, as he can confirm. (He wrote âYes, that looks good enough for meâ, i.e. he had seen the new references.) DCâs next comment untruly describes some of Haggerâs works as âself-publishedâ and denigrates O Books, one of Haggerâs publishers since 2004, which has hundreds of authors and sells books worldwide, particularly in the US. O Books have been notified of DCâs comment and I understand will be making a statement, which should be posted on this page. Bduke is surely right that the issue is not a continuous unfounded personal attack on Hagger but whether the sources are decent.
840:
made of translations. I do want to do further work on the sources, and there is more work to be done on Haggerâs appointment as tutor of Prince
Hitachi, which falls within notability. Some of the points that have been made are easily addressed. The Times article on 3 October 1970 was entitled âThe war against racialismâ, p.12. It appeared 29 years before the internet and a way needs to be found to make such pre- or extra-internet material readable online, including the account in Encounter of how Hagger was told by a student at Peking University in March 1966 that all the students had been sent out to the countryside for socialist re-education, the first whiff of the Cultural Revolution which broke in August. (Detail not appropriate in the article.) It is particularly surprising that the deleted sources include a six-page published letter by Ted Hughes about Haggerâs early works.
846:
deleted two of the four sources (on Ted Hughes and Ezra Pound) three times between Feb 1 and 3 and when I reinstated them between Feb 2 and 4 so that the jury could consider all the evidence, posted a warning on my talk page saying that I had been engaged in an edit-war and might be blocked. As a result I could not log in for a while. Meanwhile
Fladrif conceded that the Pound source was allowable but denied that the Hughes source qualified under WP:ABOUTSELF, still a moot point. Given the circumstances, this procedure from another editor was unfair. Procedure aside, the main issue is the 51 sources (see history page 11:34, 3 February 2011 for deleted sources) and how they can be improved. It is hard to discuss improvement if they are no longer at the end of the article because one person feels they should not be there.
834:
23.37) Fladrif posted his delete regarding this article. Later he stated that Admin
Spartaz had been wrong and deleted 21 of the 51 sources in this article, including notability ones to do with writings about the books, prompting deletes from new editors who understandably believed that these sources do not exist. In a court of law the evidence is laid before the court, two-fifths is not deleted before the jury can assess it. It is odd that one of the deletes is by a user (JN466) who was the first to vote for DC in the first AfD, and asked SmartSE to âhave a lookâ. Five weeks of one-man continuous personal attack ended on February 4, and the turn of events on February 5 and 6 is disquieting and may have resulted in no consensus.
653:. There are few, if any reliable, independent secondary sources on this person. The article does indeed contain over 50 footnotes, but there is considerable duplication, a number of them appear to be citations to unpublished correspondence or lectures, others don't identify the articles, authors or page numbers supposedly being cited, others are on their face not reliable sources. A check through Google shows that, other than a handful of articles about the estate where he lives, there is virtually no coverage whatsoever of his career, writings or philosophy which is the bulk of the focus of the article. A prolific author whose work is ignored is simply not notable. Absent that this BLP does not meet the standards of
703:, regardless of what Spartaz may say. A close examination of such sources as one can examine for this article- most of them are unverifiable for lack of proper citation form - shows that they do not constitute multiple, significant, non-trivial coverage of the subject by independent secondary sources. The subject talking about himself does not constitute notability. Private correspondence does not constitute notability. Dust jacket blurb does not establish notability. Unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims by his publicist on talk pages at Knowledge (XXG) - even if every word is true - does not constitute notability.
755:
have written. A major problem is that the article has been heavily edited by his publicist - while never a reason to delete in itself, it makes it very hard for us to determine the significance of the sources that are referenced, particularly when they do not even provide a title for the reference. If evidence could be provided via email, to demonstrate that articles have been written specifically about this author, rather than his house, then I would be willing to reconsider, but until then, I'm not happy to !vote to keep this article, which is a poorly sourced BLP.
875:
are the bare minimums required for proper citation. I have been unable to turn up any of them though at least the Times articles should turn up on Lexis/Nexis (must be doing something wrong). Fully a third of the citations remaining are to various articles in a small local newspaper, which according to WorldCat is only archived at the
British Library - making it pretty much impossible for anyone to verify. Such papers are generally considered as inadequate to establish notability of a subject.
1029:. If we can't check it, it's not verified, and this, this person fails the GNG. The East Anglican Daily Times, which has 6 different articles cited, only has two references to him on their website, one of which is about him selling his house. The Telegraph, which has 5 different articles listed as sources, only has one mention of him on their website, once again about the house. The Times, listed with three articles, has no mentions whatsoever. Delete for failing GNG.--
565:
How many other authors would that now exclude? And few authors today are not engaged in promotion of some kind. Nicholas Hagger has no financial stake or connection with, or ownership of, or shares in, O Books (one of several imprints in John Hunt
Publishing Ltd, to which the same applies), and O Books has no connection with Oak-Tree Books. He is one of 700 or so authors we currently have on the website, and treated on the same basis as all the others.
1113:, all written by the same journalist, but I'm fairly sure that we don't consider every person covered in local press to be notable as there are so many people we could potentially include. All in all, I'm afraid that the references I've seen, are not sufficient to establish notability so I'm not able to change my original !vote of delete. It's a closer call than I thought it might be, but I still think that deletion is the best route.
415:. Yes, a lifelong, wealthy self-promoter has managed to get himself a fair amount of attention. But this article greatly overstates his accomplishments, and misrepresents minor publishers as major ones and fringe academic theories as mainstream. His assistant just above acknowledges that he is organizing a concerted effort to keep this promotion on Knowledge (XXG). We are being astroturfed, folks.
464:
weather he is mainstream or niche it does not matter. If there are people buying and reading his books (which I assume there must be if an independent publisher is involved) then they should be able to look him up on wikipedia to find out more about him. More attention should be on correcting the article rather than deleting it. I would suggest the following alterations:
1129:
tutor to Prince
Hitachi for a similar length of time? The book on Scargill was in two parts: sayings and analysis. There are review articles about this book, but I was responding to the inability of many to find articles by Hagger or about Haggerâs pre-internet work on the internet, and establishing that it exists. The images have verified the sources.
816:", but it hardly matters. These claims are not, as far as we can tell, verifiable, and should be rooted out. Once removed, there's not much left. One of his works might have gotten independent coverage and might be notable in itself, but this doesn't make enough to base an author bio on. (And whether that work really is notable is another open AfD.) --
557:
scope and detail and fully justifies his declaration of a
Metaphysical Revolution, which also has profound consequences for our understanding of world affairs. This is one of the most important philosophical books to appear since Whiteheadâs âProcess and Realityâ eighty years ago and deserves the widest possible readership. A stupendous achievement.
544:âAt O Books we do not claim to be a major publisher. The imprint only started in 2004. But the idea that we are only a step above a vanity publisher is absurd, and potentially damaging to us. Go to âAbout usâ on the website for comments from the trade, and reputable sources like The Bookseller, the main trade magazine in the UK.
812:- Articles with a smoke screen of plausible looking references can be difficult cases. There are an awful lot of claims here which are just not substantiated. I don't think they are outright false, just exaggerated; I suppose, for instance, there is some queer tortured sense in which he was "the first Westerner to discover the
475:- "It remains to be seen whether Universalism has the potential to be the most important movement in thought and art since Existentialism, as has been claimed." This is undeniably cringey. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to make bold prophetic statements about what a person might achieve, it is an encyclopedia of facts.
472:- "Hagger wrote a short story in 1966, and during the next 40 years wrote a thousand more." The use of the word 'thousand' communicates an over exaggeration. A wikipedia fact needs to be far more precise, please count the stories properly instead of using an estimated figure in an attempt to sound impressive.
1128:
Did SmartSE have a look, as suggested, at the WP article on
Elizabeth Gray Vining, which is almost exclusively about her appointment as tutor by the Japanese Imperial Household for three years, and assess the degree of notability conferred by Haggerâs appointment by the Japanese Imperial Household as
754:
at present I can't see any evidence to indicate that the GNG is met for this author. In short - as far as I can tell, this is the first place where anyone has written about Hagger's life and work, which is not the purpose of wikipedia, since we are a tertiary source which should report on what others
684:
The references fulfil Admin Spartazâs requirement of two decent sources, with which he concurred. As he found, there are a number of reliable independent secondary sources that are non-trivial in newspaper articles, other books, reviews and radio broadcasts that serve a general audience. WP:ABOUTSELF
564:
Of course others will disagree. But I canât see this factor as reason for deleting the entry (rather than revising it if necessary). The comment that Nicholas Hagger is a âwealthy self promoterâ is irrelevant. I have no idea how wealthy he is. But when did having money mean you werenât able to write?
547:
We have published some poetry titles that we do not see as commercial, where the author or a university or an organization might make a contribution to the production costs. Three years ago (when that section of the website was written) that might have amounted to 1% or so of our list. Now it amounts
285:
Not quite right. The AfD was closed as delete, but in response to a claim from the aforementioned Sanrac1959 that there were further sources, the closing admin reversed their close before seeing the actual references. In response to my request to relist the AfD, the closer decided to raise the matter
845:
In my experience, there are WP users who are constructive and genuinely want to evolve a better article. There are also users who seem to want to delete at all costs, regardless of the article. There have been procedural irregularities regarding the Overlord (Epic Poem) site where the nominator, DC,
330:
DCâs opening statement is the same as a month ago and just as misleading, and the same refutations apply. Haggerâs âgrand unified theoryâ of world history and religion is the subtitle of his book The Fire and the Stones, as the article makes clear. The 51 sources are not âalmost all the authorâs own
1088:
Sanrac has emailed me copies of 56 (!) documents. I'll try to digest what they are: some articles for newspapers he wrote (no use for establishing notability), photographs and notes etc. (again no help as it'd be OR to do anything with these), a lot of articles about a book he wrote which collected
1068:
Delete - per nom, Orange Mike, and Fbifriday. We're also still waiting for the promised e-mails from Sanrac1959 and a comment on the authenticity of David Lomer's apparent book acket-only review. Attempts by Sanrac to discredit Delicious Carbuncle (who BTW is not an admin, but a regular
874:
I only deleted sources that clearly do not qualify as reliable sources, most particularly unpublished or self-published ones which cannot be verified. There are others that I have left alone for now, such as the various newspaper articles which are only identified by date. Title, page and author
463:
There are a few things which are unprofessional about this article. Despite pruning, there is still evidence of peacock flattery, and more thoroughness is needed with the references. However, I do not think it is worthy of deletion. The size of his acomplishments and fame seem to be in debate, but
1132:
WP:BASIC holds that multiple independent sources may be combined, and a combination of the articles about Haggerâs books through interviews at Otley Hall and about his role in the minersâ strike, added to his tutoring of Prince Hitachi, the deleted in-depth studies by Sebastian Barker and Bennett
839:
The issue is whether five-fifths (not three-fifths) of the sources indicate notability and can be improved. I have to say, I do not understand why more attention is not paid to the translations of Haggerâs books into several languages. Perhaps it is a shortcoming in WP guidelines that more is not
914:
I don't have a problem with that. As I noted above, the lack of proper citation makes it impossible to even locate what article is supposedly being referenced, even for those papers like the Times which has archives accessible through Lexis/Nexis. EADT is only archived at the British Library, so
556:
In this magisterial work Nicholas Hagger unites the rational and intuitive strands of Western philosophy in the light of the latest findings from physics, cosmology, biology, ecology and psychology. His in-depth exposition of these sciences and their philosophical implications is breathtaking in
929:
I am particularly curious because, searching the Times archive, I found only one article with Hagger's byline (not one of the ones cited), and no hits corresponding to the various Times articles which are cited as having been written by him. I know that the Times only started adding bylines to
833:
This AfD was supposed to end at 22.06 on Friday February 4 when by my count there were 4 keeps and 2 deletes. The time was extended to allow the nominator, DC, to bring in Fladrif (see DCâs appeal for a third opinion on WP:ABOUTSELF in relation to the Overlord (epic poem) page). After 22.06 (at
551:
Itâs not my place to comment on the tone of the entry, but I can assure the administrators that we publish Nicholas Hagger on his merit and his sales. He has also been published by other independent publishers like Watkins. His titles get excellent endorsements and reviews, from serious people,
469:- "...the only Angry hero to turn away from the outer world and undergo an inner transformation." The use of the word 'only' makes this sound like a ridiculous assumption backed up by no research. There are many figures from mythology and history who can be described in the same way.
732:
perhaps document the potential notability of the building, and might justify the subject's mention in any article on it, but there is not enough to justify a standalone BLP. Note that a number of the sources lack titles (e.g. " The Times, 3 October 1970, p12, three columns").
930:
articles gradually during the 1970's, and so it would not suprise me if he wrote or contributed to some articles for which he was not credited. If that's the case, however, we have no reliable source to verify that he actually did no. We shall see.
1173:
of Vining so we can have an article on her. That you can provide photos of Hagger with a Japanese prince doesn't mean anything at all, unless other people have taken note of it. As we've now established, the only sources which have addressed
286:
at DRV instead. Unsurprisingly, we ended up here again. The fact that Sanrac1959 has made the claim that they are Hagger's personal assistant should be an indication that sources proffered by them need to be examined carefully.
548:
to a small fraction of that, in terms of numbers of titles and income. Probably far less than most independent publishers, particularly in the area of academic publishing and poetry. We just happen to be open about it.
522:, so one in 1966 plus a thousand more is mathematically accurate and not an exaggeration. Will make this clear in the article. Will remove the final sentence from the article. Thanks for such a thoughtful response.
177:
208:
Prolific yet otherwise unremarkable author. Fails WP:GNG. A Google news search turned up a few mentions as owner of restored hall in Suffolk, but certainly no mention of their "grand unified theory" of history.
84:
1133:
Freeman, and the deleted letter by Ted Hughes, which constitutes a valid secondary source now it has been published in The Letters of Ted Hughes, collectively make a case for a degree of notability.
265:. I have no view on this article, but I suggest that "single purpose accounts" or COI are not the issue. The issue is whether the references, and there are many of them, demonstrate notability. --
138:
1025:
itself. If you look at the sources, none of them are actually sources regarding him. It's just a list of pages that have no way to be verified and some paywall sites. See
171:
79:
311:, who seem to be only a step above a vanity publisher. O Books explicitly notes that some books are "subsidized by the author" including particular mention of "poetry".
237:
262:
213:. From the history of the article, and related articles on author's poems, a number of "single purpose accounts" seem to be associated with this BLP. In particular
1193:
860:
Sanrac1959, it likely would not be helpful for me to address your misunderstandings, but let me suggest that your accusations are not helping your case.
552:
prominent in the fields of art and philosophy. A sample review from one of the latest works of his weâve published, The New Philosophy of Universalism:
795:. Notability hasn't been demonstrated, suggest userfy while author finds atleast one reliable source that demonstrates notability without question.
1196:
about Scargill ("Scargill the Stalinist?: The Communist Role in the 1984 Miners' Strike"). It should be noted that this was a self-published work.
971:. The more closely you look at the "substantive" sources he and his press agent and fan(s) keep pointing to, the less substantive they appear. --
514:
On the above three points: âAngry heroâ means âAngry Young Man heroâ (i.e. of the 1950s movement), will correct the article to make clear. There
1105:
notable, but again no use for determining his notability. Again, as we had aleady pretty much determined, there are a couple of articles in the
396:
Sanrac1959 is right about the sources no longer being so heavily self-sourced and I have struck that bit of cut-and-paste from the first AfD.
1165:
and quite frankly it is irrelevant. I think you're confusing what notability means - it means that someone has taken note of his activities.
1052:
above. Google search uncovers no third-party coverage of him, no evidence of any impact at all. There isn't any evidence that he is notable.
366:
aside from Sanrac1959, there is a history of single-purpose accounts associated with Hagger's BLP and related articles on his poems (i.e,
497:
345:
I do not intend to get into a debate here with the subject of this article (or someone claiming to be their proxy), but for the record:
111:
106:
501:
115:
898:
Sanrac1959 has offered to email me some sources, so can I suggest we wait until these are provided before this discussion is closed?
17:
1200:
1187:
1153:
1122:
1078:
1061:
1038:
1010:
983:
953:
939:
924:
907:
884:
869:
855:
825:
804:
785:
764:
746:
712:
694:
670:
643:
625:
602:
583:
531:
484:
453:
436:
419:
405:
340:
320:
295:
280:
252:
226:
63:
1149:
98:
1069:
Wikipedian) are unfounded and misplaced. There has to be a limit on the time we can keep this AfD open waiting for Sanrac.
192:
159:
865:
598:
401:
316:
291:
222:
1217:
36:
630:
Yes, there are a lot of sources, but which demonstrate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, to satisfy
1166:
1006:
359:
their close of the original AfD, but that is not relevant to this discussion or the current state of the article;
248:
153:
1026:
1216:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1197:
861:
594:
397:
375:
312:
287:
218:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
493:
480:
149:
1162:
1137:
1002:
489:
476:
367:
307:
It is also worth pointing out that among Hagger's books are self-published works and works published by
371:
199:
1145:
1057:
978:
949:
851:
690:
579:
527:
336:
244:
102:
1034:
813:
590:
185:
993:
968:
700:
654:
740:
616:
Plenty of sources. The policies of "I don't like it" and "WP is not censored" might be relevant.
58:
1183:
1118:
1074:
935:
920:
903:
880:
781:
773:
760:
708:
666:
639:
449:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1097:- only passing mentions in articles about the quotes contained, a fair few of articles about
165:
821:
621:
571:
O-Books www.o-books.net, Zero Books www.zero-books.net, Circle Books www.circle-books.net.â
432:
416:
1022:
631:
363:
49:
1141:
1090:
1053:
972:
945:
847:
800:
686:
593:'s review of Hagger's book was published somewhere, or is it a book jacket blurb? Thanks.
575:
523:
332:
273:
214:
94:
69:
658:
1049:
1030:
1161:
Strangely enough I haven't looked at every of the 3.5 million articles we have to see
735:
53:
1179:
1114:
1070:
931:
916:
899:
876:
777:
756:
704:
662:
635:
445:
132:
817:
617:
428:
48:. Continued discussion will not change the fact that adequate sources to meet
1098:
796:
729:
266:
996:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
388:
308:
967:- minor conspiracy theorist, self-promoter, poet and fictionist who fails
568:
John Hunt, Owner, John Hunt Publishing Ltd, O Books and other imprints.
915:
there is no way for anyone to confirm, absent going there in person.
661:. The initial decision to delete this BLP was undoubtedly correct.
261:. The first Afd was closed as delete, but this was overturned at
559:
David Lorimer, Programme Director, Scientific and Medical Network
1210:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
355:
to the article itself until 14 January, after the closing admin
427:- Per references which shows this persons clear notability.--
351:- The additional sources mentioned by Sanrac1959 were not
728:
Don't see evidence of notability as a writer; reports on
356:
352:
128:
124:
120:
184:
85:
Articles for deletion/Nicholas Hagger (2nd nomination)
217:
has self-identified as Hagger's personal assistant.
1001:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
263:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2011 January 15
198:
211:Almost all sources used are the author's own works
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1220:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1178:are local newspapers which are not sufficient.
574:Posted at the request of John Hunt/O Books by
444:which sources demonstrate "clear notability"?
657:, and none of his works meet the standard of
8:
238:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
391:to confirm what I said above about O Books;
232:
236:: This debate has been included in the
1192:Sanrac1959 makes reference to Hagger's
387:self-published, and editors can follow
77:
944:Will email these to SmartSE tomorrow.
589:Sanrac1959, can you ask John Hunt if
80:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Hagger
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1101:, which as I think we've determined
76:
24:
774:asked me to have a look at this
1109:, that are specifically about
1:
1201:14:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1188:13:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1154:13:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1123:12:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1079:08:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1062:03:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1039:02:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
1011:01:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
984:00:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
954:22:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
940:19:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
925:17:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
908:11:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
885:17:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
870:11:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
856:11:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
826:02:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
805:21:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
786:14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
765:14:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
747:06:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
713:18:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
695:13:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
671:23:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
644:14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
626:15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
603:15:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
584:12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
532:12:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
485:09:53, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
454:14:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
437:20:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
420:16:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
406:18:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
348:- I am not an administrator;
341:12:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
321:00:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
296:00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
281:23:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
253:23:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
227:22:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
64:16:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
1237:
374:, and, from the first AfD
699:Two sources doesn't meet
381:- Some of Hagger's books
1213:Please do not modify it.
376:User:Pink dog with cigar
32:Please do not modify it.
1163:that other stuff exists
364:single purpose accounts
75:AfDs for this article:
52:have not been found.
518:1,001 stories in the
502:few or no other edits
1093:, but nothing about
539:Statement by O Books
504:outside this topic.
1198:Delicious carbuncle
862:Delicious carbuncle
814:cultural revolution
595:Delicious carbuncle
398:Delicious carbuncle
313:Delicious carbuncle
288:Delicious carbuncle
219:Delicious carbuncle
1169:shows the NYT did
368:User:GardinerNeDay
44:The result was
1157:
1140:comment added by
1013:
520:Collected Stories
505:
372:User:George199329
362:- With regard to
255:
241:
1228:
1215:
1156:
1134:
1000:
998:
981:
975:
743:
738:
487:
278:
271:
242:
203:
202:
188:
136:
118:
34:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1218:deletion review
1211:
1135:
1091:Arthur Scargill
1027:WP:SOURCEACCESS
991:
979:
973:
741:
736:
274:
267:
245:Jclemens-public
215:User:Sanrac1959
145:
109:
95:Nicholas Hagger
93:
90:
73:
70:Nicholas Hagger
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1234:
1232:
1223:
1222:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1126:
1125:
1089:the quotes of
1082:
1081:
1065:
1064:
1042:
1041:
1015:
1014:
999:
988:
987:
986:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
911:
910:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
842:
841:
836:
835:
828:
807:
790:
789:
788:
749:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
674:
673:
648:
647:
646:
610:
609:
608:
607:
542:
541:
535:
534:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
473:
470:
458:
457:
456:
422:
410:
409:
408:
394:
393:
392:
379:
360:
349:
324:
323:
301:
300:
299:
298:
256:
206:
205:
142:
89:
88:
87:
82:
74:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1233:
1221:
1219:
1214:
1208:
1207:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1172:
1168:
1167:This obituary
1164:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1130:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1048:I agree with
1047:
1044:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1004:
997:
995:
990:
989:
985:
982:
976:
970:
966:
963:
962:
955:
951:
947:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
913:
912:
909:
905:
901:
897:
894:
893:
886:
882:
878:
873:
872:
871:
867:
863:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
843:
838:
837:
832:
829:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
808:
806:
802:
798:
794:
791:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
753:
750:
748:
745:
744:
739:
731:
727:
724:
723:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
683:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
611:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:David Lorimer
588:
587:
586:
585:
581:
577:
572:
569:
566:
562:
561:
558:
553:
549:
545:
540:
537:
536:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
512:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:Hector chorda
486:
482:
478:
477:Hector chorda
474:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
439:
438:
434:
430:
426:
423:
421:
418:
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
390:
386:
385:
380:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
358:
354:
350:
347:
346:
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
329:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
302:
297:
293:
289:
284:
283:
282:
279:
277:
272:
270:
264:
260:
257:
254:
250:
246:
239:
235:
231:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
201:
197:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:Find sources:
143:
140:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
81:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
57:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1212:
1209:
1175:
1170:
1136:â Preceding
1131:
1127:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1094:
1085:
1045:
1018:
992:
964:
895:
830:
809:
792:
769:
751:
734:
725:
681:
650:
613:
573:
570:
567:
563:
560:
555:
554:
550:
546:
543:
538:
519:
515:
460:
441:
424:
412:
383:
382:
327:
304:
276:(Discussion)
275:
268:
258:
233:
210:
207:
195:
189:
181:
174:
168:
162:
156:
146:
59:
54:
45:
43:
31:
28:
974:Orange Mike
500:) has made
425:Steady Keep
417:Chick Bowen
172:free images
1142:Sanrac1959
1099:Otley Hall
1054:Perchloric
946:Sanrac1959
848:Sanrac1959
730:Otley Hall
687:Sanrac1959
576:Sanrac1959
524:Sanrac1959
333:Sanrac1959
1171:take note
1050:Fbifriday
1031:Fbifriday
1003:T. Canens
969:WP:AUTHOR
772:Jayen466
701:WP:AUTHOR
655:WP:AUTHOR
389:this link
1150:contribs
1138:unsigned
994:Relisted
498:contribs
357:reversed
139:View log
55:lifebaka
1180:SmartSE
1115:SmartSE
1086:Comment
1071:Kudpung
932:Fladrif
917:Fladrif
900:SmartSE
896:Comment
877:Fladrif
831:Comment
778:SmartSE
757:SmartSE
705:Fladrif
682:Comment
663:Fladrif
636:SmartSE
446:SmartSE
442:Comment
309:O Books
305:Comment
259:Comment
178:WPÂ refs
166:scholar
112:protect
107:history
1046:Delete
1023:WP:GNG
1021:Fails
1019:Delete
965:Delete
818:WTFITS
810:delete
793:Delete
752:Delete
726:Delete
651:Delete
632:WP:GNG
618:Borock
429:BabbaQ
413:Delete
150:Google
116:delete
50:WP:GNG
46:delete
797:Szzuk
659:WP:BK
353:added
269:Bduke
193:JSTOR
154:books
133:views
125:watch
121:links
16:<
1194:book
1184:talk
1146:talk
1119:talk
1107:EADT
1075:talk
1058:talk
1035:talk
1007:talk
980:Talk
950:talk
936:talk
921:talk
904:talk
881:talk
866:talk
852:talk
822:talk
801:talk
782:talk
770:Note
761:talk
709:talk
691:talk
667:talk
640:talk
622:talk
614:Keep
599:talk
580:talk
528:talk
494:talk
481:talk
461:Keep
450:talk
433:talk
402:talk
337:talk
328:Keep
317:talk
292:talk
249:talk
234:Note
223:talk
186:FENS
160:news
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
1176:him
1111:him
1095:him
977:|
742:466
516:are
384:are
243:--
200:TWL
137:â (
1186:)
1152:)
1148:â˘
1121:)
1103:is
1077:)
1060:)
1037:)
1009:)
952:)
938:)
923:)
906:)
883:)
868:)
854:)
824:)
803:)
784:)
776:.
763:)
737:JN
733:--
711:)
693:)
669:)
642:)
634:?
624:)
601:)
582:)
530:)
496:â˘
488:â
483:)
452:)
435:)
404:)
378:);
370:,
339:)
319:)
294:)
251:)
240:.
225:)
180:)
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
60:++
1182:(
1144:(
1117:(
1073:(
1056:(
1033:(
1005:(
948:(
934:(
919:(
902:(
879:(
864:(
850:(
820:(
799:(
780:(
759:(
707:(
689:(
665:(
638:(
620:(
597:(
578:(
526:(
492:(
479:(
448:(
431:(
400:(
335:(
315:(
290:(
247:(
221:(
204:)
196:¡
190:¡
182:¡
175:¡
169:¡
163:¡
157:¡
152:(
144:(
141:)
135:)
97:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.