1487:. For the most part, the "sources" provided are not coverage of the subject but are coverage of other people or subjects with commentary from the subject or a mention of the subject somehow being credited with some of their success - that is not, as far as I am concerned, significant coverage of the subject. I think we need to distinguish between the subject and the advice the subject has given (effectively his "product", given he is a "consultant" or "advisor"). Acknowledging that the subject has given advice to others is not the same as giving significant coverage to the subject himself. He is providing a product and people have purchased that product. That doesn't make the manufacturer of the product notable, even if the "product" is verbal advice from the subject.
212:. In Nicholas Lore’s advertisement for an editor to work on his Knowledge (XXG) page, Lore says “I'm looking for the right person to do the following: 1) Knowledge (XXG) editing - and working on an existing page. There is a wikipedia page focused on me, Nicholas Lore, which needs some improvement. 2) Create a new article page for Rockport Institute (www.rockportinstitute.com) Please write back including what and how you charge. Either hourly or by the job would work for me.” The website where the ad appears, Elance.com, is the same site that’s been used by notorious sock-farmer Mike Woo
204:. The sources offered for notability are two hits from the New York Times, neither of which is about him. The articles just quote him, and as we all know, this does not meet the secondary-source requirement for notability. The only other news source offered is from a local Maryland newspaper. Obviously, this single source is insufficient for notability too. A number of very minor sources are also given, but all of them are primary, and therefore they cannot establish notability either. He has a book out, but it fails
321:. If you can't click and see an article online, that does not justify your immediately removing the reference and the text it supports. Most libraries provide microfilm or online access to these papers. Another editor has since added online links to the 2 NYT articles and the local paper article. The Wall Street Journal is behind paywall, but that does not justify removing it as a deadlink. There was removed as a ref a book which said he was a friend and roommate of musician John Sebastian, and
317:
there to support as unsourced.An article about him in a local paper was removed as a deadlink, as was the text it supported. A Wall Street
Journal article from 1998 that purportedly said the older edition of his "Pathfinder" book was a national bestseller was also removed. It would be easy to check the accuracy of that info at a library. Someone with the 2 NY Times article, the lengthy local newspaper article, and who actually had a national bestseller, would have a good case for satisfying
380:, there needs to be substantial coverage of a book--a book that was not a bestseller but that had good coverage would be notable, and a bestseller that received no coverage would not be notable. Furthermore, having a notable book does not always transfer to author notability. So the fact that Nicholas Lore is alleged to have had a bestseller does not, in and of itself, place him close to notability per WP policy. There's actually a lot more to it than that.
400:
1122:
coverage is the few words at the beginning of the sentence. We need to look at the kind of coverage that is going to actually allow us to write an encyclopedia article that isn't almost completely based on primary and self-published sources. If that doesn't exist, then the subject isn't notable, regardless of what any subject-specific notability guideline claims.
1466:
creation of an article at a deletion discussion. We regularly delete or merge articles that fall afoul of policies and guidelines other than notability. Notability is not the sole criteria to be considered at AfD. That said, this article is pretty weak on notability to start with, if you consider, as you should, the actual biographical content of the coverage.
935:
955:
945:
915:
925:
1465:
Green
Cardamom, you are grossly misinterpreting that statement on the COIN page. That statement is no longer part of the COI guideline since the recent trim, but when it was on there, it was in relation to POV disagreements and factual disputes. We should, and do, consider the intention behind the
1237:
We're not here to get even with someone you believe did something wrong. If he knew the rules, he would've just asked someone else to create it for him. He certainly has enough fans. And you don't know for certain this is the same guy. I just posted on his talk page to ask the editor to identify
570:
We need to be wary when dealing with someone who is clearly very self-promotional. It's entirely possible to buy or schmooze your way into light-weight journalistic pieces, and it's clear that the subject is not above paying off people to write about him in a way that seems neutral and objective.
1397:
Yeah, I covered that source in the nomination--do you seriously believe that a single source in the guy's local newspaper meets the requirements of multiple secondary sources? A guy who's quoted in a few places and then has one article in his local paper is notable? That's not how
Knowledge (XXG)
1412:
No, of course not. Have a look at
Northamerica's list, his sourcing is always impeccable. However, that one source contradicts two of your own statements, "Give one example of a mention in a source for this one that isn't trivial" and "The sources are junk", which is why I used it as an example.
1337:
The solution to both spam and self-promotion is to Fix It. Many editors prefer to delete spammy articles that meet the GNG because it's easier and less effort, but I am not one of them. I've looked at the sources. They are not junk, this article meets the
General Notability Guideline, and then
655:
He wasn't open about it. I uncovered it as part of an investigation into a (different) editor that I was able to correlate with a pattern of secret paid editing and possible sockpuppeting, subject to a current SPI that I filed. There are ongoing debates about paid advocacy as we speak, but the
316:
The two NY Times articles make statements about his work and background, in addition to indirectly (no quote marks) quoting him, and are significant coverage. The nominator went through the article and removed refs to the two New York Times articles as dead links, then removed the text they were
1499:
is not notable for giving advice to others about their careers or for the careers he has "re-designed", even if the advice or the "result" of the advice has subsequently been mentioned in media coverage. Even if we could somehow get our heads around the advice itself (under whatever name) being
1173:. The article is already beyond a stub so concerns about not enough existing material for a bio doesn't seem accurate and there is no deadline on when the article has to be further expanded, we just wait for more sources. For example, I wish we could find a secondary source for the quote from
1121:
Cyclopia, the article doesn't have to be dedicated to the subject, but there needs to be a significant biographical focus on the subject. When that boils down to "We talked to this guy who runs a thing related to this subject and here's what he said about this subject", the only biographical
1520:
as per WP:SELFPUB, and most to if not all mentions being trivial in nature. This "pay somebody to write something about me" mentality also stinks. Could this open the way for subjects being notable if they have enough money to pay editors. Not that I have any proof, but what is also worth
968:
371:
Nicholas Lore. I've been discussing AfDs for years now, and believe me, there are plenty of people quoted in the Times who believe they are a very big deal because of it, and they come here trying to make that claim, but in practice being quoted in the Times does not confer
Knowledge (XXG)
1280:
It's unfair to me and others who want to keep the article based solely on the sources. You are involved in a behavioral dispute which should be handled elsewhere, AfD is a content dispute. When you use behavior to influence content disputes it crosses the line. According to
322:
504:
You don't know what the articles say?! Well, that's certainly a ringing endorsement for the subject. And note that the policy requirement is not that he merely be mentioned as an authority, but that strong, solid, secondary
219:
editing that has netted him thousands of dollars for writing WP articles on non-notable people and their companies. So before Woo or some other disruptive paid editor can get here to puff-up the Lore article, or create the
167:
513:
that he is an authority. Anybody can submit his own text to a newsletter or a blog, claiming to be an authority. And what we know about
Nicholas Lore is that he is a self-promoter who will stoop to anything.
347:
The NYT articles are online, you can find them by
Googling. I read them. They included snippets of interviews from the subject, but they did not contain any significant biographical coverage of the subject.
224:
that he so desperately desires for his non-notable
Rockport Institute, we need to defend the integrity of Knowledge (XXG) by stating our consensus here on the non-notability of both Lore and his company.
761:, however it must be noted that the methodology utilized to discuss the various techniques imparted through synonyms of both lexicon and vocabulary as well as words and phrases in a non-unique fashion
1088:
the subject for meeting notability are misguided: the guideline is explicit on this: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --
1223:
There absolutely is consensus on spam and self-promotion. If he had never created his article here, we wouldn't have an article on him, probably ever. You are rewarding a spammer for spamming.
458:. Nicholas Lore probably provided the text himself, as he does everywhere. As for the other hits you cite, you admit yourself that he is only quoted. What we need is good strong secondary
1201:
imprints). No consensus has ever been reached on paid editing. However, I am aware that many editors are biased against such entries. Also, I rarely disagree with
Northamerica1000...
738:
698:
408:
Science Letter, November 11, 2008. It gives ample coverage in a full article about him. All the articles found quote him, he an expert in his field. So he meets requirement one of
372:
notability. The New York Times quotes hundreds of thousands of people every year in thousands of articles. Now, if Nicholas Lore had two articles in the Times that were actually
120:
325:, though that does not contribute to notability. It could still be mentioned if the article is kept. Starting as a COI article is not grounds for deletion if an article satisfies
1299:
That's a straw-man argument. The sources are junk. Not a single one is about him. There's also a lot of primary sourcing, which is insufficient for notability, as you know.
1130:
is as well, and if the article is not likely to ever satisfy those, then proclaimed notability under some misguided achievement-based SNG is an irrelevant secondary concern.
1285:: "Accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and may result in sanctions against you." --
1169:
have approached Lore either for a quote or to build an article around. It shows us that multiple independent reliable sources consider him a person of note to speak on
718:
585:
If he knew there was anything wrong with paying someone to write an article for him, he wouldn't have been so open about it. Sounded like a harmless innocent request.
161:
656:
general consensus is that paid editors should disclose their conflict of interest, and should definitely not write flattering, promotional pieces like this article.
242:
1435:
so he's had an article in a local Maryland community paper? I'm just wondering where is the "significant coverage" factor of this guy. I believe this is spam too.
1282:
768:
and the manner in which the language is given to use many letters strung together but bring across a meaning of very little substance — is most amusing. —
417:
The person has created ... a significant or well-known work, ... that has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
127:
376:
him, it would satisfy our notability standards for notability. Also, having a national bestseller is meaningless when it comes to notability. Per
1065:
878:
363:
1521:
considering that subject "X" may also be paying those to vote keep in deletion discussions. Just a little food for thought as well.
17:
627:
Is it even against the rules to hire someone? They had a debate about that not long ago. I don't recall a decision being reached.
93:
88:
97:
476:
He is mentioned as an authority on his subject. And since I can't read most of the articles, I don't know what all they say.
80:
182:
556:
I'm sorry, but that's just too vague for our purposes here. We need to see it in black-and-white with our very own eyes.
149:
613:
Yeah, mm-hmm, sure. Like a guy who doesn't "know" prostitution is illegal offering money to random women in the street.
1614:
40:
402:
shows 31 results. Many are hidden behind paywalls. I used my Highbeam account and found 14 results. One of them is
213:
1483:- sorry, but I'm not convinced there is enough significant coverage of the subject for the subject to be considered
1589:
1290:
1185:
1178:
143:
1266:
I wasn't the nominator. It's not about "getting even", it's about not encouraging abuse of the encyclopedia.
1500:"notable", the subject would still not be notable for the products he has produced, as far as I'm concerned.
571:
This factor should not be ignored unless it's clear that there is very wide spread and significant coverage.
1526:
1440:
1061:
1495:'s doctor (even now, his name redirects to his trial rather than a biographical article). In the same way,
1053:
1595:
1555:
1530:
1512:
1475:
1444:
1430:
1407:
1392:
1308:
1294:
1275:
1261:
1232:
1218:
1189:
1139:
1116:
1102:
1037:
1020:
1015:
994:
779:
750:
730:
710:
669:
650:
622:
608:
580:
565:
551:
523:
499:
471:
450:
389:
357:
342:
308:
291:
276:
253:
234:
139:
62:
1006:- as per the NY Times articles - the subject has a degree of notability that is suitable for inclusion -
1610:
1509:
989:
248:
36:
1238:
themselves. I notice you didn't even post on his talk page telling the article was up for deletion.
406:
Nicholas Lore and the Rockport Institute: Great Source for Stories on Selecting and Changing Careers.
202:
189:
1341:
1127:
802:
330:
1551:
1539:
1286:
1198:
1181:
1033:
175:
1081:
1046:
983:
424:
409:
221:
209:
1522:
1436:
1100:
1057:
84:
790:
1357:
1170:
1007:
894:
856:
818:
746:
726:
706:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1609:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1568:
657:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1501:
1403:
1304:
1239:
1112:
840:
628:
618:
586:
561:
529:
519:
477:
467:
428:
385:
365:
338:
230:
1150:
1077:
420:
329:. Material self-published by the article subject may be used in some cases, as outlined at
326:
318:
216:
155:
53:
1492:
1370:
907:
869:
831:
528:
The summaries can be read, and they show that reliable sources consider him an authority.
199:
1543:
506:
459:
377:
205:
456:
413:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
1584:
1547:
1471:
1271:
1228:
1135:
1029:
775:
665:
576:
353:
304:
1572:
1484:
1123:
1496:
1488:
1414:
1376:
1202:
1089:
936:"A Coach for Your Career Change; Outside Assistance Helps the Process End Favorably."
288:
76:
68:
57:
1174:
1049:(the guideline that should be used for this article). 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
742:
722:
702:
284:- Marginal notability and the article is very promotional in tone and substance. -
271:
114:
403:
1542:
imprints. No vanity publishing here. The article does need work with respect to
1399:
1300:
1108:
614:
557:
515:
463:
381:
334:
226:
1567:) and mentioning them and the other marketing at work on the Internet is more
1577:
1467:
1267:
1224:
1131:
770:
661:
572:
349:
300:
1107:
Give one example of a mention in a source for this one that isn't trivial.
198:
Nicholas Lore is a non-notable writer who has written the article himself
285:
916:"Work & Careers; Career Make-Over; He Wants to Hang Up Stethoscope."
462:, and it has not been demonstrated that it exists for this individual.
266:
299:
as above, no significant biographical coverage other than interviews
241:
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
56:
aside, several editors have found sources which establish notability
215:, who’s been blocked an extraordinary 50+ times for the disruptive
1575:. I'd also like to see the awards for his "award-winning" career.
1076:
COI concerns aside, there is some substantial evidence of meeting
1603:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
956:"For Some Workers, Pinning Down Aptitudes May Help Attitudes."
926:"Career Make-Over; Vague Goals Hurt Quest for Fulfilling Job."
399:
Google news archive search for "Nicholas Lore" and "Rockport"
455:"Science Letter" is the best you can do? It's a newsletter
415:
His book was apparently a bestseller, they mentioning it.
1028:
per above sources, appears to pass multiple guidelines.
201:, and who is looking for paid editing to finish the job
762:
110:
106:
102:
1342:"Potomac resident makes a living by tailoring careers"
803:"Potomac resident makes a living by tailoring careers"
174:
1197:
Passes the GNG and WP:AUTHOR (Two books published by
1157:. Many journalists over a long period of time in the
1155:
significant coverage in independent reliable sources
739:
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions
699:
list of Social science-related deletion discussions
188:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1617:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1283:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
1177:who praised Lore, but for now it's only primary
1084:. Note that people who ask for articles to be
763:for example first sentence here of subsection
8:
737:Note: This debate has been included in the
719:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
717:Note: This debate has been included in the
697:Note: This debate has been included in the
934:Kahlenberg, Rebecca R. (January 1, 2006).
736:
716:
696:
240:
946:"Career Guide a Great Present for Grad."
243:list of content for rescue consideration
1563:Cited mentions are trivial (other than
1366:
1365:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
1355:
903:
902:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
892:
865:
864:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
854:
839:Korkki, Phyllis (September 11, 2010).
827:
826:Italic or bold markup not allowed in:
816:
333:but it does not establish notability.
954:Trimarchi, Michael (March 17, 1991).
841:"Job Satisfaction vs. a Big Paycheck"
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1340:Donaghue, Erin (November 12, 2008).
801:Donaghue, Erin (November 12, 2008).
1538:: Fireside and Touchstone are both
1546:, but it otherwise passes muster.
924:Vaughn, Susan (November 5, 2000).
914:Vaughn, Susan (February 6, 2000).
323:you can verified that it says that
24:
877:Korkki, Phyllis (July 17, 2010).
789:- A published author that passes
986:per the two book reviews above.
879:"The True Calling That Wasn't"
1:
362:These are the Times articles
1596:19:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
1556:02:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
1531:03:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
1513:23:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1476:07:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
1445:03:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
1431:23:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1408:23:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1393:22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1309:21:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1295:20:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1276:19:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1262:11:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1233:10:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1219:08:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
1190:06:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
1140:04:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
1117:00:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
1103:00:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
1038:21:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
1021:21:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
995:20:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
780:20:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
751:19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
731:19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
711:19:48, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
670:00:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
651:20:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
623:19:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
609:18:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
581:17:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
566:07:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
552:06:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
524:06:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
500:06:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
472:06:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
451:06:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
390:02:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
358:02:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
343:01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
309:01:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
292:23:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
277:23:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
254:21:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
235:23:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
63:20:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
1375:, is *all* about Mr. Lore.
1634:
1491:is not notable for being
765:Career design methodology
660:has always been policy.
1606:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
976:(subscription required)
969:"Don't force a career."
963:(subscription required)
1180:and can't be used. --
982:—Also appears to pass
949:St. Paul Pioneer Press
367:. Neither of them is
59:Firsfron of Ronchester
1540:Simon & Schuster
1338:some. One example,
1199:Simon & Schuster
881:. The New York Times
843:. The New York Times
959:The Washington Post
939:The Washington Post
48:The result was
1171:career counseling
1126:is a policy, and
1070:
1056:comment added by
993:
929:Los Angeles Times
919:Los Angeles Times
753:
733:
713:
256:
252:
1625:
1608:
1594:
1592:
1587:
1582:
1506:
1428:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1390:
1389:
1386:
1383:
1380:
1374:
1368:
1363:
1361:
1353:
1351:
1349:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1098:
1092:
1069:
1050:
1045:per nom and per
1018:
1014:
1010:
992:
990:Northamerica1000
987:
977:
972:Kansas City Star
967:(June 4, 2008).
964:
944:(May 11, 2008).
911:
905:
900:
898:
890:
888:
886:
873:
867:
862:
860:
852:
850:
848:
835:
829:
824:
822:
814:
812:
810:
647:
644:
641:
638:
635:
632:
605:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
548:
545:
542:
539:
536:
533:
496:
493:
490:
487:
484:
481:
447:
444:
441:
438:
435:
432:
251:
249:Northamerica1000
246:
193:
192:
178:
130:
118:
100:
60:
34:
1633:
1632:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1615:deletion review
1604:
1590:
1585:
1578:
1576:
1504:
1493:Michael Jackson
1425:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1377:
1364:
1354:
1347:
1345:
1339:
1256:
1253:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1241:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1167:Washington Post
1096:
1095:
1090:
1051:
1016:
1012:
1008:
988:
975:
962:
901:
891:
884:
882:
876:
863:
853:
846:
844:
838:
825:
815:
808:
806:
800:
645:
642:
639:
636:
633:
630:
603:
600:
597:
594:
591:
588:
546:
543:
540:
537:
534:
531:
494:
491:
488:
485:
482:
479:
445:
442:
439:
436:
433:
430:
247:
135:
126:
91:
75:
72:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1631:
1629:
1620:
1619:
1599:
1598:
1558:
1533:
1515:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1433:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1287:Green Cardamom
1192:
1182:Green Cardamom
1159:New York Times
1144:
1143:
1142:
1119:
1093:
1071:
1040:
1023:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
979:
978:
965:
952:
942:
932:
922:
912:
874:
836:
795:
794:
783:
782:
755:
754:
734:
714:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
394:
393:
392:
360:
311:
294:
279:
264:. Ridiculous.
258:
257:
196:
195:
132:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1630:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1588:
1583:
1581:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1559:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1523:Whitewater111
1519:
1516:
1514:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1498:
1497:Nicholas Lore
1494:
1490:
1489:Conrad Murray
1486:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1437:Whitewater111
1434:
1432:
1429:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1391:
1372:
1359:
1344:. The Gazette
1343:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1310:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1217:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1058:Alan Liefting
1055:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1019:
1011:
1005:
1002:
1001:
996:
991:
985:
981:
980:
973:
970:
966:
960:
957:
953:
950:
947:
943:
940:
937:
933:
930:
927:
923:
920:
917:
913:
909:
896:
880:
875:
871:
858:
842:
837:
833:
820:
805:. The Gazette
804:
799:
798:
797:
796:
792:
788:
785:
784:
781:
777:
773:
772:
767:
766:
760:
757:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
735:
732:
728:
724:
720:
715:
712:
708:
704:
700:
695:
694:
671:
667:
663:
659:
654:
653:
652:
649:
648:
626:
625:
624:
620:
616:
612:
611:
610:
607:
606:
584:
583:
582:
578:
574:
569:
568:
567:
563:
559:
555:
554:
553:
550:
549:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
512:
508:
503:
502:
501:
498:
497:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
454:
453:
452:
449:
448:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
370:
366:
364:
361:
359:
355:
351:
346:
345:
344:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
315:
312:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
293:
290:
287:
283:
280:
278:
275:
274:
269:
268:
263:
260:
259:
255:
250:
244:
239:
238:
237:
236:
232:
228:
223:
218:
214:
211:
208:and he fails
207:
203:
200:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
129:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:Nicholas Lore
74:
73:
70:
69:Nicholas Lore
67:
65:
64:
61:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1605:
1602:
1579:
1564:
1560:
1535:
1518:Major Delete
1517:
1502:
1480:
1346:. Retrieved
1240:
1194:
1175:Bill Clinton
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1146:
1085:
1073:
1052:— Preceding
1042:
1025:
1003:
971:
958:
948:
938:
928:
918:
883:. Retrieved
845:. Retrieved
807:. Retrieved
786:
769:
764:
758:
629:
587:
530:
510:
478:
429:
416:
412:
405:
396:
373:
368:
313:
296:
281:
272:
265:
261:
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
123:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1565:The Gazette
1367:|publisher=
1348:October 25,
904:|publisher=
885:October 25,
866:|publisher=
847:October 25,
828:|publisher=
809:October 25,
511:demonstrate
427:just fine.
162:free images
1128:WP:SELFPUB
419:He passes
331:WP:SELFPUB
1611:talk page
1548:Faustus37
1082:WP:AUTHOR
1047:WP:AUTHOR
1030:Cavarrone
984:WP:BKCRIT
743:• Gene93k
723:• Gene93k
703:• Gene93k
509:actually
425:WP:AUTHOR
410:WP:AUTHOR
222:WP:ADVERT
210:WP:AUTHOR
37:talk page
1613:or in a
1503:Stalwart
1358:cite web
1163:LA Times
1066:contribs
1054:unsigned
895:cite web
857:cite web
819:cite web
791:WP:BASIC
121:View log
39:or in a
1569:WP:PUFF
1485:notable
1398:works.
658:WP:SOAP
168:WPÂ refs
156:scholar
94:protect
89:history
1561:Delete
1510:(talk)
1481:Delete
1400:Qworty
1301:Qworty
1151:WP:GNG
1109:Qworty
1080:] and
1078:WP:GNG
1043:Delete
1013:really
759:Delete
615:Qworty
558:Qworty
516:Qworty
464:Qworty
421:WP:GNG
382:Qworty
335:Edison
327:WP:BIO
319:WP:BIO
297:Delete
282:Delete
262:Delete
227:Qworty
217:WP:COI
140:Google
98:delete
54:WP:COI
1571:than
1544:WP:AB
1257:Focus
1086:about
646:Focus
604:Focus
547:Focus
507:WP:RS
495:Focus
460:WP:RS
446:Focus
378:WP:BK
374:about
369:about
206:WP:BK
183:JSTOR
144:books
128:Stats
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
1580:czar
1573:WP:N
1552:talk
1536:Keep
1527:talk
1472:talk
1468:Gigs
1441:talk
1404:talk
1371:help
1350:2012
1305:talk
1291:talk
1272:talk
1268:Gigs
1229:talk
1225:Gigs
1195:Keep
1186:talk
1149:Per
1147:Keep
1136:talk
1132:Gigs
1124:WP:V
1113:talk
1091:Cycl
1074:Keep
1062:talk
1034:talk
1026:Keep
1004:Keep
908:help
887:2012
870:help
849:2012
832:help
811:2012
793:per:
787:Keep
776:talk
771:Cirt
747:talk
727:talk
707:talk
666:talk
662:Gigs
619:talk
577:talk
573:Gigs
562:talk
520:talk
468:talk
423:and
397:Keep
386:talk
354:talk
350:Gigs
339:talk
314:Keep
305:talk
301:Gigs
273:talk
231:talk
176:FENS
150:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
50:keep
1505:111
1426:ve
1420:e S
1388:ve
1382:e S
1214:ve
1208:e S
1097:pia
1017:can
1009:You
190:TWL
119:– (
1554:)
1529:)
1474:)
1443:)
1423:te
1417:Th
1406:)
1385:te
1379:Th
1362::
1360:}}
1356:{{
1307:)
1293:)
1274:)
1231:)
1211:te
1205:Th
1188:)
1165:,
1161:,
1153:,
1138:)
1115:)
1068:)
1064:•
1036:)
974:.
961:.
899::
897:}}
893:{{
861::
859:}}
855:{{
823::
821:}}
817:{{
778:)
749:)
741:.
729:)
721:.
709:)
701:.
668:)
621:)
579:)
564:)
522:)
470:)
388:)
356:)
341:)
307:)
286:Mr
270:|
267:TV
245:.
233:)
170:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
52:.
1591:·
1586:·
1550:(
1525:(
1470:(
1439:(
1402:(
1373:)
1369:(
1352:.
1303:(
1289:(
1270:(
1254:m
1251:a
1248:e
1245:r
1242:D
1227:(
1184:(
1134:(
1111:(
1094:o
1060:(
1032:(
951:.
941:.
931:.
921:.
910:)
906:(
889:.
872:)
868:(
851:.
834:)
830:(
813:.
774:(
745:(
725:(
705:(
664:(
643:m
640:a
637:e
634:r
631:D
617:(
601:m
598:a
595:e
592:r
589:D
575:(
560:(
544:m
541:a
538:e
535:r
532:D
518:(
492:m
489:a
486:e
483:r
480:D
466:(
443:m
440:a
437:e
434:r
431:D
384:(
352:(
337:(
303:(
289:X
229:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
124:·
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.