Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson

1100:. Putting the blinders on regarding the latest incident, she may be notable for other things, but the sources in the article do not establish that. Bylines, author blurbs and bios from the publisher, and passing mentions don't really add up to much. What we would need are profiles about her, or pieces in which she is the subject, or having won some major awards (two Emmy nominations might cut it, but I'm not sure). News reporters are always difficult to assess for notability, because as professionals the notability is in their work and how influential and widely viewed it is, like authors. But unlike authors, who seek publicity, news reporters usually try to duck publicity and don't write about each other, because they want to keep the story on the news, not themselves. As a local news reporter, I think she would only be notable for her work if it is particularly significant, influential, prominent, etc. Finally, the BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS concerns apply to the on-air event. However, Internet memes, and memorable events with lasting resonance, are certainly encyclopedic subjects. It remains to be seen whether this is such an event but it may well be. If major sources are still writing about this a month from now (and I'll bet they will be), then the event is notable and should be covered as such. That would imply renaming and refocusing this to be about the event, not about her. - 613:

and if the internet didn't exist, you would never even have a platform to voice your worthless rubbish. No one would listen to your rubbish; just another smelly college student getting ready to join a workforce of sheep. Serene Branson is a beautiful young lady who has achieved a wonderful prize and deserves to be recognized for that honor. She also has a wonderful career in front of her, despite you nasty talentless male pigs wishing her ill. FACT: None of YOU could win the Frank Shakespeare award. Deleting her article is totally against the spirit of Knowledge that Jimbo Wales professes to encourage while asking the public with his begging bowl to donate money. Please do NOT delete this article.

987:, an on-air screw-up or seizure or whatever they think it is, it will be in youtube's archives forever more and that will be the end of it. A smattering of local dribble trawled out of a google search does not rescue this person form obscurity; absent this event, we would not be talking about her all. There are thousands of reporters in thousands of communities who have no doubt received the same "Person X is leaving local outlet Y to take a job at local outlet Z" write-ups. 2165:, her article would have gone unnoticed if it was written about her after the local Emmy wins. Plus, this incident is notable in the context in an anthropological sense, of how the internet can exploit someone's (at that point presumed) medical issue; someone researching the history of the Internet and culture and general, as of 2100, will likely find this (and other examples) to be interesting, valuable case studies. It's planning ahead, essentially. Also, 2225: 983:- This is going to be the new task I appoint myself; every time I see some witless, TMZ-ish OHMYGOD news-of-the-day about some previously unknown person suddenly getting drive-byed by the 24/7 news media, I will come here. I will then search for this person, crossing my fingers and hoping against hope that it will be a redlink. Today, disappointment sets in. She is being mentioned only for this 31: 2110:- Just because the article was "hastily" put together and there was "incorrect reporting of an on air incident" does not diminish her notability. I think this AfD was "hastily" made without due consideration of that. The article is sourced. She has been nominated for and received notable awards. The article needs some expansion, and the information about the on-air incident needs some 2093:: On the one hand this event has spread through Youtube virally and has even spawned "remixes" and such. Birtation or Bird-tation might even become a meme. However I think this may die down, or it may stick around in reporting, but if attention were to die down lets leave the meme sites to report on this and lets not turn Knowledge into a lulz-free version of Encyclopediadramatica. 2576:

being interviewed by Diane Sawyer on ABC Evening News. Additionally, I assume that there is a complete video library of her KCBS news reports that amounts to a large body of primary source material, and I think such a library makes any local reporter of a well-organized TV station a strong candidate for recognition as having enduring historical interest.

1204:- If her entry is deleted, then all kinds of entries for local TV personalities will have to be called into question. If the Grammy flub turns out to be nothing, then it should probably eventually be removed from her article. I would like to point out, however, that the "Hoobert Heever" flub occupies an entire paragraph high in the article for 1430:. If this article stays at all, it should be changed to an event. My opinion is that viral youtube videos, their re-mixes and any spawned internet memes are notable in their own right. Only time will tell if this person rises to notability because of the incident, but until that point this should be a page describing the event and the 664:– Fairnessprevails, It does not matter that you are new to Knowledge, such comments are not only not appreciated, but they are not acceptable in any form. If you wish to contribute to Knowledge, I suggest you realize this is a community of volunteers and understand you are welcome to disagree, but not become disagreeable. Please read 2300:(it just happened after all) but with a few improvements the article would stand on its own. Also, it's almost certain, as a relatively young reporter, that she will be doing more things. I'm not using a crystal ball, I'm just thinking that unequivocal hammering home of the "rules" can sometimes cause people to completely miss the 2296:), but that isn't the case. She is a reporter who has done other things and gained at least some notability during her career. I genuinely believe that the WP:N guidelines were not made with this kind of person/article in mind. I'm not seeing the harm in keeping the article and improving on it. Sure, this event is the focus 2224:, notable. Discussion above shows that there were two events, (1) the video of the event, and (2) the misreporting regarding a stroke. Therefore the positions based on WP:BLP1E fall. Also not mentioned is that KCBS is not an affiliate but one of the core TV stations that defines CBS as a "network" (see 2575:

article states, "...Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside combined statistical area, which contains nearly 17.8 million people and center of the largest urban area in California. This makes it the 12th most populous metropolitan area in the world." So as non-notable people go she is highly notable before

1074:

The coverage is significant, sober, and serious - full articles in very respectable publications. Per Edison I think the question is whether a person with minor (which would imply keeping) or no (which would imply deleting or refocusing) notability, caught up a single news event, merits an article.

1530:

applies. Looking at the earlier coverage, she's had some attention from reliable sources, but all pretty minor and cursory; not enough to pass the notability test, I think. The question to ask in these cases is 'if it hadn't been for the recent event, would we have had an article on the person?' and

874:

I am not desperate to "win", are you desperate to keep every article you come across? I am interested in exposing bad arguments, especially those that appear to be intentionally deceptive. Two examples of local news does not magically equal "significant coverage", and more than 2 plus 2 can equal

191:

The arguments for "keeps" are basically saying that she was notable before this event as a result of the Emmy nominations and her career. (Incidentally, the fact that she works for a major CBS affiliate does not, in and of itself, make her notable). The arguments against this is that the nominations

116:

Firstly, I would like to thank everyone who has commented here. Your opinions (including the responses to other people's comments) were invaluable. This is the strength of the AfD process - it allows discussion to take place, and a truly community-based decision to be made. So thank you everyone who

2853:

When I nominated this, I really didn't see that much controversy with it. But I am neither a deletionist nor an inclusionist and if people are hell bent on keeping it, I don't feel compelled to push the matter any farther. If somebody else does, fine. It is not that important enough an issue for me

2627:

I would disagree in part with that. The notability guideline isn't terribly well defined for journalists, but along with others who are known more for their body of work than for their own personal exploits, journalists' notability is derived at least in part for the influence of their reportage.

2725:

to yourself. It should be discounted because it is trivial and routine. Absent this brief episode of on-air confusion, aphasia, or whatever it was, no one would be digging up in long-forgotten news blurbs or crowing over non-notable regional Emmys for a regional news reporter. This article is a

1047:

essay, and did not say "Crummy article X exists, so this one should stay." Rather I noted that this article has at least a couple of in depth cases of coverage of the person, prior to the recent widespread publicity, and that prior to the recent newsevent she had a small claim to notability, along

1004:

Even if you "DONTLIKE" articles about someone who has minor notability, followed by worldwide coverage due to some Youtube-esque episode, please do not descend to the tactic of denigrating significant coverage in reliable and independent sources as a "smattering of local dribble," when the nature

612:

determines that this beautiful reporter's prize is "not notable". And what have you won, Safiel? What national prizes have you won, you lazy armchair prat? This is a classic example of the talentless morons who dictate their biased and unfair views on Knowledge. If you weren't posting on Knowledge

1661:

She is a reporter at a major network-affiliated station in a major U.S. media market; there are dozens of Knowledge articles on persons at a comparable level of notability. Obviously, the article needs to be developed beyond the story of this one incident and needs relavent facts from verifiable

2823:

Oh, BS. No consensus findings are a weak cop-out, it's like basketball refs handing out double-technical because they don't ant to take the time or make an effort to see who the instigator was. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments, discard the junk that falls back on rote

795: 790: 1843:

I'm not saying the emmys are an ideal indicator of notability, but I think that she'd achieved some notability for those emmys prior to the event which spurred the creation of this article. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think in this case, one plus one equals two, with two being

2496:. I was surprised (but sadly, not shocked --I'm never shocked by Knowledge anymore) to see someone had placed a delete tag on this article. In addition to the nominations, she's an established reporter for one of CBS's biggest affiliates (LA and NYC are the top, for crying out loud). -- 2291:

be coming from people disgusted with the sensationalist media circus surrounding this one event. This would be a completely different discussion if it were a random person caught on camera in the midst of a medical event, even if the news had picked it up and ran with it (because of

2469:

As already discussed above, her nominations for the Emmy awards count as something, as are her other awards. The article is about her, not the Grammy Awards incident. See Vendetta's reasoning above. I'm completely neutral about the topic, and I don't care either way, but that is my

1576:; the only general reporter with an article besides Branson is Lisa Sigell, and that's because she's a former KCBS morning news anchor. The rest who have articles are anchors, weather, and sports; general news reporters are not-notable. Many of the keep votes so far put her into 1662:

third party sources like DOB and more career info, but most articles are not born full-grown. Why not leave it for a while and see what develops; if in a few weeks or months there is little of merit beyond this incident in the article, then RFD would be completely in order.

689:

ttonyb your play on words, witty as it may be, does not help your case. Fairnessprevails is entitled defend his/her standpoint in this matter. If you find this disagreeable then I recommend you disregard Fairnessprevails comment. Others may find it completely valid.

482:. She may well be non-notable under the applicable Knowledge standards, but in fairness, it should be noted that last night's incident has been reported in hundreds of reliable sources, nationally and internationally, in addition to hundreds of unsavory gossip sites. 488:

However, I haven't been able to track down independent confirmation of the Emmy nominations mentioned at her station bio, and it appears to me that the "Frank Shakespeare Award" mentioned there is a student award given by the Institute on Political Journalism of the

2533:. There is nothing notable here. This article is merely a news story, and a minor one at that. In a short time no one is going to look at it. I have no doubt that there are numerous WP articles of the same level of notability, but that is no reason to keep another. 2601:. The large amount of video material that is comprised of her KCBS reports is not a primary source that supports her, but rather they are primary support for the events she was covering. Being part of a "well-organized TV station" is not one of the criteria in 2207:. Local Emmy is not enough for notability; she's just a news reporter who suddenly went viral because of one incident, and the incident itself is fiarly minor. The RS coverage only talks about the incident in question, not about Branson as a person herself. 1048:

with the fact that this bio article has better reliable sourcing than thousands of article found in AFDs about the classes of article subjects I mentioned. Please do not clutter the debate by strawman arguments in which you put words in someone else's mouth.

756:

This personal attack by Fairnessprevails against myself appears to be the only edit by this editor. Moreover, he takes a swipe at Mr. Wales. Since he apparently has plenty of rope and seems to be intent on hanging himself, I won't say anything more about it.

2702:

argument by similar earlier coverage. The fact that the earlier coveerage is "years old" is absolutely not an argument for deletion when such a person gets widespread newscoverage later. Notability is not temporary, and coverage from years ago is fine.

1136:- borderline notable at best, but frankly we have 100s if not 1000s of TV news reporter articles like this and nobody cares a whit about them. At least (as we all know how the !votes are going to go), don't delete until the 7 day AfD period is over.-- 124:

in the 'delete' camp, as the nominator. Although s/he said that it should be closed as no consensus, this is not the same as saying "I now think that it should be kept" - if this assumption is incorrect, then please accept my apologies.

206:

I appreciate that however I had closed this AfD (delete, keep, no consensus) then it would be controversial! I trust that this fuller-than-usual explanation of the thoughts behind my decision will be beneficial to all contributors.

845:

Your claim is simply fraudulent. What we have are two small articles from the same local (sacbee.com) source. That does not even remotely satisfy "multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources".

1498:. I pretty much agree with Tarc. If it wasn't for the recent event she would not be notable. The earlier coverage is neither substantial nor widespread, being typical local coverage of TV reporters. This would not have passed 1452:, and in cases where youtube, etc...personalities have become worthy of Wikpedia articles, it is due to them being covered by those other sources. EVEN RS coverage isn't enough for an article, as in this case it is only a 1075:

That's a persistent issue. Whereas the problem is sometimes that the event itself is so trivial that no major reliable sources cover it, in other cases like this one the event itself is notable (or would be but for

1157:

I have !voted "weak delete", but I certainly agree with Milowent that this AfD should run the full 7 days; by then we may have a better idea of whether this is going to gain traction that would make notability more

333: 1676:

Regarding "dozens of Knowledge articles on persons at a comparable level of notability", can you show where? If there are, perhaps these need to be evaluated for notability concerns as well, but going by

2550:

A non-notable reporter who is sadly receiving a ton of coverage for an unfortunate one event she was the focus of. Also remember, working for a big company is not a reason for notability, as described in

889:

In my last 20 AFD !votes, I see 7 "Keeps" and 13 "Deletes," clearly the index of a rabid Inclusionist, who is "intentionally deceptive" by including links to newspaper articles, rather than ranting.

812:

None of that confers notability, just standard blurbs on a minor reporter. Oh, she left one job for another? Woo hoo....local, trivial coverage. Stop trying to squeeze notability out of nothing.

171:

If this were a straight vote, then it would be numerically 25 deletes - 24 keeps - 1 other. If I ignored the "less weight" arguments discussed above, it would numerically be 23 deletes - 16 keeps.

781:

She had some claim of notability before the vocal flubadub, since there had been multiple news coverage about her, not merely by her. See the pre-flub Google News Archive results for 2005-2010:

2676:

claim. A handful of editors are engaging in a form of revisionist history, trawling through weak, years-old name-droppings to try to build this person up to be more than she actually is.

1821:

Two nominations for the same piece, one that resulted in a win, in the Los Angeles Area Emmy awards. This is interesting, but probably not the type of significant award or honor that

486: 294: 2654:, who had a only similar small claim to notability (coauthored 2 paper, spoke as "safety expert") before making a fine emergency landing of a plane and getting news coverage. 2647: 2304:

of them. Maybe it's just me though. Personally, I don't have a TV, saw this reporter's name and wanted to read about her, bringing me to Knowledge. Isn't that what we're for?

798:, behind paywall, also appear to have significant coverage of her before the episode. Being in the news worldwide does not remove modest notability which previously existed. 1448:

We really can't count youtube and other viral video creations as assertions of notability though, those are user-generated/submitted things. Notability is established by

2026:

Is that that Regional Emmy, or maybe the Regional Student Emmy given to high school students? If it was a national Emmy, and she actually won, that would be notable. --

1264: 327: 1844:

notability. I'm also not going to be upset if this article is deleted. While I think it should be kept, the consensus may go the other way, and that's fine with me.

513:

Even if we get 3rd party verification of the emmy nom, it probably wouldn't show notability, since it's probably a regional emmy, given for local news coverage. --

796:"Serene Branson Channel 13's crime reporter made a name for herself during last November's sweeps when she had an exclusive interview with released pedophile ... " 136:

Arguments presented by editors/IPs with few or no edits outside of the article and the AfD, although this only accounted for 8% of the total number of contributors

2650:

to back their desire to delete a case like this where someone had a bare claim to notability before they were in the news worldwide for several news cycles, like

40: 2346:

The coincidence of a significant neurological event being widely televised with Ms. Branson's already extant fame merits a keep. Users will want to find this. --

1290: 668:

before you continue contributing to Knowledge. I will make sure you have been left a Welcome message on your talk page that contains a number of useful links.

2186:. Were this just a viral video, she wouldn't be notable, but the level of continuing, substantive RS coverage is more than enough to demonstrate notability. 1328:

Don't delete it until we know all the details about what really happened. Then if it turns out it was her just flubbing her words, then delete it of course.

1229:– The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. It could very well be they should not exist on Knowledge. Also, I would venture to say that 192:

are for regional Emmys not national ones (which do not give the same level of notability) and that the coverage of her career prior to the event is minimal.

831:

requires only multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which is satisfied. An entire article is not trivial coverage.

1873:

justification is enough. Besides this, millions of people will be looking for information on the event from Knowledge, this is, afterall, it's purpose.

1481:

and the teaching possibilities of this because of it's rarely being caught on video and her young age. People will be looking for a Knowledge article.

1005:

and quality of coverage is better than that of countless localities, politicians, high schools, and professional athletes who had a moment in the sun.

2384:, even if the 1E is still generating echoes. I will say that this AfD has generated some of the most imaginative "keep" rationales I've ever seen. 483: 932:

As shown above, she had multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources before the recent worldwide news coverage.

782: 157:"Change to event article" - not for the reasoning as such, but as there was only one person who suggested this, so it is nowhere near consensus! 1901: 648: 629: 2605:

or any other notability criteria. Additionally, because notability is not inherited, neither is being part of or associated with something.

2401:: While the incident did get some major headlines, the fact that she does have some award (nominations) does contribute to her credibility. 2363:

The reporter was interviewed tonight on ABC Evening News; and Entertainment Tonight (ET), also on ABC, had two segments with an interview.

1344: 697: 557: 543: 2694:

The two newspaper articles (far more than "name-droppings") and the local Emmy nomination are a weak claim, but hardly "no claim" unless

2514:

even hints at your argument that "you're a reporter for a huge organization, therefore you're notable and deserve a Knowledge article."

1185: 2809:

As there is clearly no consensus either way, and there clearly won't be a consensus, I think we can safely close this as no consensus.

2250: 2094: 1663: 267: 262: 230: 97: 2628:

With authors, mere appearance on a best seller list is enough to establish notability. Secondary sources are few and far between. -

2898: 2271: 271: 2073: 113:

As this is going to be controversial, I thought I would give a more detailed explanation of my reasoning than I would usually do!

1724: 652: 565: 2287:, for a few reasons. I understand the policies that others are referencing, but my concern is that some of this Delete-backlash 2316: 2191: 254: 17: 414:

As the original nominator, there clearly will be no consensus on this and I think we can go ahead and close as no consensus.

365:

Article was hastily added after incorrect reporting of an on air incident. Proposing for deletion as a non notable reporter.

348: 2781:

Interesting point about the DRV, and this discussion was started before anyone could make an informed decision. Please see

2169:, it's important to that our slightly more rounded portrait be featured in search results, instead of misinformation. -- 1588:

refute that. Unless she becomes a national network reporter, she isn't notable; local reporters are generally not notable.

485:

She has been around as a reporter for quite a while and might have a scintilla of notability apart from last night's scare.

315: 2334: 1932: 2187: 1607: 1384:. Ms. Branson has received a high level of media attention and sparked discussions on the symptoms of a stroke. -- 644: 625: 2149: 389:

Also, the Frank Shakespeare award she won is in itself non notable and not sufficient to establish her notability.

2880: 2790: 2581: 2368: 2258: 2237: 1954: 1622: 1616:

We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this. –GetRidOfIt! 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)"

1044: 722:. Fairnessprevails is more than entitled to defend his/her stand; however, not in a manner that is offensive or 714:– My comments were not intended to defend my stand on the article, only to point out to Fairnessprevails lack of 490: 65: 46: 309: 199:. Whether the event itself deserves an article is a discussion for other places. As such I am closing this as a 161:

I did not discount them completely, but I felt that they were lesser arguments than others that were presented.

2879:

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

2045: 1802: 1478: 924: 701: 579:– The existence of other articles has no bearing on this AfD. Each article must stand on its own merits. See 561: 547: 64:

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

1340: 1189: 2408: 2229: 2142: 1913: 1753: 2863: 2837: 2818: 2794: 2772: 2735: 2712: 2685: 2663: 2637: 2618: 2585: 2562: 2542: 2523: 2505: 2484: 2458: 2440: 2414: 2393: 2372: 2355: 2338: 2321: 2279: 2262: 2241: 2216: 2195: 2178: 2157: 2123: 2102: 2085: 2056: 2035: 2021: 1996: 1975: 1958: 1937: 1917: 1896: 1853: 1838: 1813: 1792: 1778: 1757: 1736: 1715: 1690: 1671: 1653: 1626: 1597: 1558: 1540: 1515: 1490: 1465: 1443: 1418: 1393: 1372: 1323: 1305: 1279: 1250: 1217: 1193: 1167: 1145: 1128: 1119:, per WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#NEWS. Just not notable enough to merit an article, without the incident. 1109: 1088: 1057: 1028: 1014: 996: 969: 955: 941: 927: 898: 884: 869: 855: 840: 821: 807: 766: 739: 705: 681: 640: 633: 621: 596: 551: 522: 508: 474: 445: 423: 399: 375: 305: 236: 103: 2330: 2098: 1712: 1667: 1486: 1124: 224: 178:

a numerical vote - it is the arguments which are important, and so I had to look at the main issues here.

91: 1336: 188:

Almost all of the "deletes" say that it is (and/or that the event is the notable thing, not the person).

2593:– No one disputes the LA news market is large; however, being seen by a lot of people does not make one 2275: 1971: 1849: 1774: 1577: 1079:

concerns. Anyway, don't mind Tarc's colorful language. He/she is a good editor, just opinionated. -

355: 2786: 2651: 2577: 2519: 2364: 2254: 2233: 2212: 1950: 1878: 1732: 1618: 1482: 1332: 1181: 1024: 693: 617: 539: 2698:

has been revised to raise the bar. In previous cases, others of slight notability have avoided the

2633: 2552: 2313: 1884: 1389: 1209: 1163: 1105: 1084: 921: 785: 718:

is not appreciated nor acceptable on Knowledge. If you think it is, then I suggest you also read

504: 341: 258: 2005: 860:

Your claim of fraud is an unwarranted personal attack, and shows how desperate you are to "win."

436:

This is a just a local reporting flubbing about 10 seconds of speech, which is pretty minor. --

2538: 2511: 2473: 2429: 2403: 2389: 2135: 2081: 2052: 2031: 2017: 1909: 1870: 1826: 1809: 1788: 1766: 1749: 1681:, only one other reporter has an article, and she actually won a real Emmy plus 2 regional ones. 1593: 1554: 1536: 1453: 1435: 1319: 1213: 984: 518: 441: 196: 2721:

I didn't say it should be discounted because it is "years old", so please, keep the servings of

2074:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/02/17/serene-branson-talks-about-her-live-medical-emergency/

1568:. I watch KCAL/KCBS on a daily basis, and she is one of their lesser used reporters. Check out 2614: 2174: 1706: 1414: 1368: 1301: 1275: 1246: 1120: 735: 723: 719: 677: 665: 592: 470: 454: 213: 80: 58:

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

1983:. Not notable other than for the single garbled on-air appearance. This is a classic case of 1549:. This is a BLP1E, and a somewhat negative one at that; there are no grounds for keeping it. 2859: 2814: 2768: 2708: 2659: 2559: 2351: 2119: 2111: 1992: 1967: 1845: 1834: 1822: 1770: 1439: 1053: 1010: 965: 937: 894: 865: 836: 803: 762: 419: 395: 371: 321: 2782: 2760: 2699: 2515: 2501: 2381: 2293: 2208: 2204: 1984: 1946: 1928: 1874: 1728: 1701: 1647: 1580:. Other keep votes try to argue there's lots of reporters with articles, but the list at 1527: 1511: 1503: 1020: 917: 715: 496: 182: 2833: 2731: 2681: 2629: 2454: 2310: 1892: 1686: 1461: 1385: 1230: 1205: 1159: 1101: 1080: 992: 951: 880: 851: 817: 500: 250: 242: 2892: 2825: 2763:, but whatever closure happens it's going to get DRVed. This is one of those things. 2695: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2534: 2385: 2077: 2048: 2027: 2013: 1905: 1805: 1784: 1589: 1550: 1532: 1499: 1315: 1234: 1138: 1076: 1019:

So you're using a OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument to justify the existence of this article?

580: 533: 514: 437: 2606: 2170: 2041: 1798: 1449: 1406: 1360: 1297: 1271: 1238: 727: 669: 584: 462: 2648:

WP:ONEVENTPLUSACOUPLEOFEARLIERINDEPENDENTANDRELIABLESOURCESWITHSIGNIFICANTCOVERAGE

1783:

Would you still feel that way if it is a regional Eemmy, given for local work. --

288: 499:

and some level of discretion here may suggest that deletion is the best course.--

2855: 2810: 2764: 2722: 2704: 2672:

She didn't have a "bare claim to notability" before this event, though; she had

2655: 2572: 2556: 2347: 2115: 2009: 1988: 1830: 1745: 1049: 1006: 961: 933: 918:

our policy on biographies of living people who are known only for a single event

890: 861: 832: 828: 799: 758: 609: 415: 391: 367: 121: 2251:

Knowledge talk:Notability (events)#Afd/merge discussions while event is current

2497: 1507: 458: 195:

My feeling is that the arguments for keeping the article do not quite counter

2829: 2727: 2677: 2450: 2046:

http://www.emmys.tv/2009/61st-los-angeles-area-emmy%C2%AE-awards-nominations

2012:, which may make her a bit notable, but, that's the only source I've found. 1888: 1803:

http://www.emmys.tv/2009/61st-los-angeles-area-emmy%C2%AE-awards-nominations

1682: 1479:

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/15/did-a-reporter-have-a-stroke-on-tv/

1457: 988: 947: 876: 847: 813: 791:"Serene Branson who had been freelancing in the area will be a reporter ..." 2597:. Neither is popularity part of the equation that defines Knowledge based 1869:- As above, even discounting the notability of the featured individual the 2069: 1477:. The NYTimes has already run an article on Ms. Branson's possible stoke 1405:– She is not the focus of the media attention. The event is the focus. 493: 2270:

as per nom and, as above the event is the focus, not the journalist. --

1678: 1585: 1581: 1573: 1569: 2068:: Her own station has identified the medical event: she suffered a 2133:- This article seems decent and has multiple independent sources. 1744:

coverage above from before 1E isn't significant enough to satisfy

1237:

for a quite a few more things beyond his "Hoobert Heever" flub.

2873:

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

1545:

On second thoughts, there's nothing 'weak' about it, just plain

154:"People will be looking for this article following the coverage" 145:"If we delete this, we would have to reconsider other articles" 1526:. If the only grounds for notability are the recent incident, 25: 1359:– What difference would the reason for the Paraphasia make? 532:

There is no basis for deleting this article. Case in point:

164:

Now on to the actual reason for my judging the consensus as

139:"Per other people's arguments" with no argument of their own 128:

Thirdly, some of the arguments presented I judged as having

1502:

before, which makes this recent incident fit squarely into

495:, and thus probably not anything that conveys notability. 284: 280: 276: 151:

No reasoning given (i.e. a simple "Keep" and signature)

340: 960:

Then please do so rather than posting empty bluster.

946:As shown above, this claim is rebutted. Easily. 181:Obviously, the main argument here is: "Is this a 68:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2883:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2329:for the same reasons given by Vendetta above. -- 2042:http://www.emmys.tv/search/node/Serene%20Branson 1799:http://www.emmys.tv/search/node/Serene%20Branson 1966:Notable event, non notable person up until now 1265:list of Television-related deletion discussions 1233:was much more notable than Ms. Branson and was 1434:it caused. Not an article about the person. -- 2114:, but otherwise it is an acceptable artcile. 354: 8: 1887:is not a valid reason to retain an article. 2040:It's a Regional Emmy, not a national Emmy. 1797:It's a Regional Emmy, not a national Emmy. 1725:Non-event Medical Problem of Serene Branson 1291:list of People-related deletion discussions 2076:Is she notable for suffering a migraine?! 1285: 1259: 2726:shining example of inclusionism run amok 1638:: swayed by arguments by other editors. 1289:: This debate has been included in the 1263:: This debate has been included in the 142:"Other people do/do not have an article" 45:For an explanation of the process, see 1902:Knowledge:Knowledge is an encyclopedia 1765:- The Emmy nominations put it up over 1610:, which shows as an invalid argument, 7: 1531:in this case I have to answer 'no'. 2646:Diehard Deletionists should create 41:deletion review on 2011 February 25 2445:Would this be the notability that 2167:we're the second result for Serene 786:a 2007 newspaper article about her 24: 2008:, she had been nominated for two 608:Don't you just love the way that 148:Personal attacks against editors 29: 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1314:per all previous arguments. -- 1: 2864:18:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2838:18:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2819:18:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2795:17:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2773:15:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2736:18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2713:18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2686:15:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2664:00:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 2638:16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 2619:19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2586:19:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2563:16:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2543:16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 2524:23:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 2506:17:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC) 2485:15:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 2459:14:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 2441:12:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 2415:05:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 2394:03:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 2373:02:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 2356:16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2339:02:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC) 2322:23:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2280:21:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2263:21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2242:21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2217:21:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2196:20:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2179:16:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2158:16:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2124:16:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2103:14:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2086:11:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2057:11:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2036:06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 2022:03:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1997:03:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1976:18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 1959:17:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 1938:16:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 1918:14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 1897:14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 1854:17:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 1839:13:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1814:11:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1793:19:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1779:17:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1758:15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1737:05:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1716:03:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1691:14:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC) 1672:03:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1654:02:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1627:21:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 1598:02:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1559:12:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 1541:23:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1516:22:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1491:21:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1466:15:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC) 1444:21:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1419:19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1394:19:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1373:19:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1324:18:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1306:18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1280:18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1251:18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1218:18:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1194:18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1168:19:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1146:18:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1129:17:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1110:08:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1089:08:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1058:13:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1029:05:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 1015:03:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 997:02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 970:03:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 956:03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 942:02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 928:02:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 899:04:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 885:03:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 870:03:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 856:03:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 841:02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 822:02:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 808:02:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 767:05:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 740:02:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 706:01:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 682:01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 634:01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 597:05:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC) 552:01:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 523:01:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 509:01:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 475:00:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 446:00:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 424:18:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 400:01:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 376:00:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC) 237:00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 104:00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC) 1679:KCBS-TV#Current on-air staff 1643:.Only notable for one event. 1456:single 15 minutes of fame. 2915: 2426:of the single incident.-- 1347:) 19:21, 15 February 2011 491:Fund for American Studies 461:resulting from migraine. 47:Knowledge:Deletion review 2899:Pages at deletion review 2876:Please do not modify it. 61:Please do not modify it. 2854:to get worked up over. 2230:CBS Television Stations 1428:Change to event article 1927:— textbook example of 1043:I'm familiar with the 120:Secondly, I have left 2188:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 653:few or no other edits 566:few or no other edits 2652:Chesley Sullenberger 784:. See in particular 655:outside this topic. 568:outside this topic. 132:weight than others: 2553:Knowledge:INHERITED 2006:this article on MSN 1608:WP:OtherStuffExists 2828:, and make a call 2826:arguments to avoid 2072:, yes a migraine. 1945:as wildly trivial 1829:are getting at. -- 1727:, then delete. -- 1045:WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 73:The result was 2331:Pompous Trihedron 1617: 1349: 1335:comment added by 1308: 1294: 1282: 1268: 1184:comment added by 1144: 696:comment added by 656: 637: 620:comment added by 569: 542:comment added by 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 2906: 2878: 2611: 2482: 2480: 2478: 2438: 2436: 2434: 2413: 2411: 2406: 2320: 2153: 2146: 2139: 1934:*** Crotalus *** 1710: 1650: 1611: 1450:reliable sources 1411: 1365: 1348: 1329: 1295: 1269: 1243: 1196: 1143: 732: 708: 674: 641:Fairnessprevails 638: 636: 622:Fairnessprevails 614: 589: 555: 554: 467: 359: 358: 344: 292: 274: 233: 227: 219: 216: 174:However, AfD is 109:Closing Comments 100: 94: 86: 83: 63: 33: 32: 26: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2881:deletion review 2874: 2787:Unscintillating 2607: 2578:Unscintillating 2476: 2474: 2472: 2432: 2430: 2428: 2422:per notability 2409: 2404: 2402: 2365:Unscintillating 2319: 2305: 2255:Unscintillating 2234:Unscintillating 2151: 2144: 2137: 1951:Jonathanwallace 1908:a newspaper. -- 1769:in my opinion. 1708: 1648: 1619:Unscintillating 1407: 1361: 1330: 1239: 1179: 728: 691: 670: 615: 585: 537: 463: 301: 265: 249: 246: 231: 225: 217: 214: 98: 92: 84: 81: 66:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2912: 2910: 2902: 2901: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2802: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2776: 2775: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2716: 2715: 2689: 2688: 2667: 2666: 2641: 2640: 2622: 2621: 2566: 2565: 2545: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2417: 2396: 2375: 2358: 2341: 2324: 2309: 2282: 2265: 2244: 2219: 2198: 2181: 2160: 2127: 2126: 2105: 2088: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 1999: 1978: 1961: 1940: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1899: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1760: 1739: 1718: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1656: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1601: 1600: 1578:WP:SingleEvent 1563: 1562: 1561: 1518: 1493: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1397: 1396: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1351: 1350: 1337:74.160.113.121 1326: 1309: 1283: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1231:Harry Von Zell 1221: 1220: 1206:Harry Von Zell 1198: 1197: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1149: 1148: 1131: 1113: 1112: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1031: 999: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 922:Metropolitan90 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 901: 825: 824: 774: 772: 771: 770: 769: 747: 745: 744: 743: 742: 698:79.102.220.252 684: 658: 657: 602: 601: 600: 599: 571: 570: 558:79.102.220.252 544:79.102.220.252 527: 526: 525: 477: 457:minor case of 448: 429: 427: 426: 407: 405: 404: 403: 402: 362: 361: 298: 251:Serene Branson 245: 243:Serene Branson 240: 185:item or not". 159: 158: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 71: 70: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2911: 2900: 2897: 2896: 2894: 2884: 2882: 2877: 2871: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2852: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2783:this proposal 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2755: 2754: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2724: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2610: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2558: 2554: 2549: 2548:Strong Delete 2546: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2492: 2491: 2486: 2483: 2481: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2447:doesn't exist 2444: 2443: 2442: 2439: 2437: 2425: 2421: 2418: 2416: 2412: 2407: 2405:ViperSnake151 2400: 2397: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2376: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2359: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2342: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2325: 2323: 2318: 2315: 2312: 2308: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2290: 2286: 2283: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2266: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2245: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2199: 2197: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2182: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2161: 2159: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2148: 2147: 2141: 2140: 2132: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2113: 2109: 2106: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2089: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2064: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2004:According to 2003: 2000: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1979: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1962: 1960: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1941: 1939: 1936: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1910:SarekOfVulcan 1907: 1903: 1900: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1883: 1882: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1865: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1761: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750:SarekOfVulcan 1747: 1743: 1740: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1719: 1717: 1714: 1713: 1711: 1703: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1660: 1657: 1655: 1652: 1651: 1644: 1642: 1637: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1529: 1525: 1523: 1519: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1494: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1473: 1472: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1410: 1404: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1380: 1379: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1364: 1358: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1327: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1310: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1242: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186:129.21.80.140 1183: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1156: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1147: 1141: 1140: 1135: 1132: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1115: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1003: 1000: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 979: 971: 967: 963: 959: 958: 957: 953: 949: 945: 944: 943: 939: 935: 931: 930: 929: 926: 923: 919: 915: 912: 900: 896: 892: 888: 887: 886: 882: 878: 873: 872: 871: 867: 863: 859: 858: 857: 853: 849: 844: 843: 842: 838: 834: 830: 827: 826: 823: 819: 815: 811: 810: 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 792: 787: 783: 780: 777: 776: 775: 768: 764: 760: 755: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 741: 737: 733: 731: 725: 721: 717: 713: 710: 709: 707: 703: 699: 695: 688: 685: 683: 679: 675: 673: 667: 663: 660: 659: 654: 650: 646: 642: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 611: 607: 604: 603: 598: 594: 590: 588: 582: 578: 575: 574: 573: 572: 567: 563: 559: 553: 549: 545: 541: 535: 534:Caitlin Upton 531: 530:Do not delete 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 511: 510: 506: 502: 498: 494: 492: 487: 484: 481: 478: 476: 472: 468: 466: 460: 456: 452: 449: 447: 443: 439: 435: 432: 431: 430: 425: 421: 417: 413: 410: 409: 408: 401: 397: 393: 390: 387: 386: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 373: 369: 366: 357: 353: 350: 347: 343: 339: 335: 332: 329: 326: 323: 320: 317: 314: 311: 307: 304: 303:Find sources: 299: 296: 290: 286: 282: 278: 273: 269: 264: 260: 256: 252: 248: 247: 244: 241: 239: 238: 234: 228: 222: 221: 220: 208: 204: 202: 198: 193: 189: 186: 184: 179: 177: 172: 169: 167: 162: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 138: 135: 134: 133: 131: 126: 123: 118: 114: 111: 110: 106: 105: 101: 95: 89: 88: 87: 76: 69: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2875: 2872: 2850: 2806: 2801: 2756: 2673: 2608: 2590: 2560:(let's chat) 2547: 2530: 2493: 2471: 2446: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2398: 2377: 2360: 2343: 2326: 2306: 2301: 2297: 2288: 2284: 2267: 2249:Please note 2246: 2221: 2200: 2183: 2166: 2162: 2150: 2143: 2136: 2134: 2130: 2107: 2095:174.55.2.138 2090: 2065: 2001: 1980: 1963: 1947:single event 1942: 1933: 1924: 1885:WP:ITSUSEFUL 1866: 1818: 1762: 1741: 1720: 1705: 1697: 1664:75.216.40.75 1658: 1646: 1640: 1639: 1635: 1613: 1565: 1546: 1521: 1520: 1495: 1474: 1431: 1427: 1408: 1402: 1381: 1362: 1356: 1331:— Preceding 1311: 1286: 1260: 1240: 1226: 1201: 1176: 1154: 1137: 1133: 1121:AndyTheGrump 1116: 1097: 1001: 980: 913: 789: 778: 773: 753: 746: 729: 711: 686: 671: 661: 616:— Preceding 605: 586: 576: 529: 479: 464: 450: 433: 428: 411: 406: 388: 384: 383: 364: 363: 351: 345: 337: 330: 324: 318: 312: 302: 212: 211: 209: 205: 200: 194: 190: 187: 180: 175: 173: 170: 165: 163: 160: 129: 127: 119: 115: 112: 108: 107: 79: 78: 74: 72: 60: 57: 36: 2723:red herring 2573:Los Angeles 2512:WP:CREATIVE 2510:Nothing in 2327:Strong Keep 2272:82.41.20.82 2091:Weak Delete 2010:Emmy Awards 1968:Airplanegod 1964:Weak Delete 1871:WP:ONEEVENT 1846:Umbralcorax 1827:WP:CREATIVE 1771:Umbralcorax 1767:WP:ONEEVENT 1454:WP:ONEEVENT 1180:—Preceding 1158:apparent.-- 1098:Weak delete 1077:WP:NOT#NEWS 985:WP:ONEEVENT 692:—Preceding 651:) has made 564:) has made 538:—Preceding 480:Weak delete 328:free images 203:consensus. 117:took part. 2599:notability 2516:hbdragon88 2470:opinion.-- 2307:*Vendetta* 2209:hbdragon88 1875:Stevezimmy 1729:Uzma Gamal 1649:Falcon8765 1483:Karen Anne 1021:hbdragon88 724:WP:UNCIVIL 720:WP:UNCIVIL 666:WP:UNCIVIL 459:Paraphasia 455:WP:ONEVENT 2630:Wikidemon 2002:Weak keep 1823:WP:ANYBIO 1700:Textbook 1659:Weak Keep 1386:Evans1982 1298:• Gene93k 1272:• Gene93k 1160:Arxiloxos 1102:Wikidemon 1081:Wikidemon 501:Arxiloxos 210:Regards, 183:One Event 2893:Category 2761:WP:BLP1E 2700:WP:BLP1E 2535:Busaccsb 2386:PhGustaf 2382:WP:BLP1E 2294:WP:BLP1E 2205:WP:BLP1E 2112:trimming 2078:OCNative 2070:migraine 2049:OCNative 2014:WereWolf 1985:WP:BLP1E 1929:WP:BLP1E 1806:OCNative 1709:itsJamie 1702:WP:BLP1E 1590:OCNative 1551:Robofish 1533:Robofish 1528:WP:BLP1E 1504:WP:BLP1E 1345:contribs 1333:unsigned 1316:DHeyward 1210:Bellczar 1182:unsigned 1139:Milowent 716:civility 694:unsigned 649:contribs 630:contribs 618:unsigned 577:Comments 540:unsigned 497:WP:BLP1E 295:View log 232:contribs 197:ONEEVENT 99:contribs 2851:Comment 2807:Comment 2595:notable 2591:Comment 2424:outside 2361:Comment 2247:Comment 2171:Zanimum 2145:Nidhiki 2066:Comment 1819:Comment 1586:KCAL-TV 1582:KCBS-TV 1574:KCAL-TV 1570:KCBS-TV 1403:Comment 1357:Comment 1235:notable 1227:Comment 1155:Comment 1002:Comment 754:Comment 712:Comment 687:Comment 662:Comment 412:Comment 385:Comment 334:WP refs 322:scholar 268:protect 263:history 215:Phantom 82:Phantom 2856:Safiel 2811:Safiel 2765:Stifle 2757:Delete 2705:Edison 2696:WP:BIO 2656:Edison 2609:ttonyb 2603:WP:BIO 2557:Yaksar 2531:Delete 2475:Obsidi 2431:Obsidi 2380:Still 2378:Delete 2348:Chaler 2317:edits) 2311:(whois 2302:spirit 2268:delete 2201:Delete 2116:Cresix 1989:Crunch 1981:Delete 1943:Delete 1925:Delete 1831:Crunch 1742:Delete 1721:Rename 1698:Delete 1641:Delete 1614:Delete 1566:Delete 1547:delete 1524:Delete 1500:WP:GNG 1496:Delete 1436:Lansey 1409:ttonyb 1363:ttonyb 1312:Delete 1241:ttonyb 1117:Delete 1050:Edison 1007:Edison 981:Delete 962:Edison 934:Edison 925:(talk) 914:Delete 891:Edison 862:Edison 833:Edison 800:Edison 759:Safiel 730:ttonyb 672:ttonyb 610:Safiel 587:ttonyb 581:WP:WAX 465:ttonyb 451:Delete 434:Delete 416:Safiel 392:Safiel 368:Safiel 306:Google 272:delete 201:delete 166:delete 122:Safiel 75:Delete 2498:Bobak 2410:Talk 1987:. -- 1508:Kevin 349:JSTOR 310:books 289:views 281:watch 277:links 218:Steve 85:Steve 16:< 2860:talk 2834:talk 2830:Tarc 2815:talk 2791:talk 2769:talk 2759:per 2732:talk 2728:Tarc 2709:talk 2682:talk 2678:Tarc 2660:talk 2634:talk 2615:talk 2582:talk 2571:The 2539:talk 2520:talk 2502:talk 2494:Keep 2455:talk 2451:Tarc 2420:Keep 2399:Keep 2390:talk 2369:talk 2352:talk 2344:Keep 2335:talk 2314:talk 2285:Keep 2276:talk 2259:talk 2253:. ‎ 2238:talk 2232:). 2228:and 2222:Keep 2213:talk 2203:per 2192:talk 2184:Keep 2175:talk 2163:Keep 2131:Keep 2120:talk 2108:Keep 2099:talk 2082:talk 2053:talk 2044:and 2032:talk 2018:talk 1993:talk 1972:talk 1955:talk 1914:talk 1893:talk 1889:Tarc 1879:talk 1867:Keep 1850:talk 1835:talk 1825:and 1810:talk 1801:and 1789:talk 1775:talk 1763:Keep 1754:talk 1746:WP:N 1733:talk 1707:OhNo 1687:talk 1683:Tarc 1668:talk 1636:Keep 1623:talk 1606:See 1594:talk 1584:and 1572:and 1555:talk 1537:talk 1522:Weak 1512:talk 1487:talk 1475:Keep 1462:talk 1458:Tarc 1440:talk 1432:buzz 1415:talk 1390:talk 1382:Keep 1369:talk 1341:talk 1320:talk 1302:talk 1287:Note 1276:talk 1261:Note 1247:talk 1214:talk 1202:Keep 1190:talk 1177:Keep 1164:talk 1134:Keep 1125:talk 1106:talk 1085:talk 1054:talk 1025:talk 1011:talk 993:talk 989:Tarc 966:talk 952:talk 948:Tarc 938:talk 920:. -- 916:per 895:talk 881:talk 877:Tarc 866:talk 852:talk 848:Tarc 837:talk 829:WP:N 818:talk 814:Tarc 804:talk 794:and 779:Keep 763:talk 736:talk 702:talk 678:talk 645:talk 626:talk 606:KEEP 593:talk 562:talk 548:talk 519:talk 505:talk 471:talk 453:– A 442:talk 420:talk 396:talk 372:talk 342:FENS 316:news 285:logs 259:talk 255:edit 226:talk 168:... 130:less 93:talk 2785:. 2555:.-- 2298:now 2289:may 2226:ref 2138:Toa 2028:Rob 1906:NOT 1785:Rob 1748:.-- 1723:as 1296:-- 1270:-- 875:5. 583:. 536:. 515:Rob 438:Rob 356:TWL 293:– ( 176:not 2895:: 2862:) 2836:) 2817:) 2793:) 2771:) 2734:) 2711:) 2684:) 2674:no 2662:) 2636:) 2617:) 2584:) 2541:) 2522:) 2504:) 2457:) 2449:? 2392:) 2371:) 2354:) 2337:) 2278:) 2261:) 2240:) 2215:) 2194:) 2177:) 2152:05 2122:) 2101:) 2084:) 2055:) 2034:) 2020:) 1995:) 1974:) 1957:) 1931:. 1916:) 1904:. 1895:) 1881:) 1852:) 1837:) 1812:) 1791:) 1777:) 1756:) 1735:) 1704:. 1689:) 1670:) 1645:' 1625:) 1596:) 1557:) 1539:) 1514:) 1506:. 1489:) 1464:) 1442:) 1417:) 1392:) 1371:) 1343:• 1322:) 1304:) 1293:. 1278:) 1267:. 1249:) 1216:) 1192:) 1166:) 1142:• 1127:) 1108:) 1087:) 1056:) 1027:) 1013:) 995:) 968:) 954:) 940:) 897:) 883:) 868:) 854:) 839:) 820:) 806:) 788:, 765:) 738:) 726:. 704:) 680:) 647:• 639:— 632:) 628:• 595:) 556:— 550:) 521:) 507:) 473:) 444:) 422:) 398:) 374:) 336:) 287:| 283:| 279:| 275:| 270:| 266:| 261:| 257:| 235:\ 102:\ 77:. 43:. 2858:( 2832:( 2813:( 2789:( 2767:( 2730:( 2707:( 2680:( 2658:( 2632:( 2613:( 2580:( 2537:( 2518:( 2500:( 2479:n 2477:♠ 2453:( 2435:n 2433:♠ 2388:( 2367:( 2350:( 2333:( 2274:( 2257:( 2236:( 2211:( 2190:( 2173:( 2118:( 2097:( 2080:( 2051:( 2030:( 2016:( 1991:( 1970:( 1953:( 1949:. 1912:( 1891:( 1877:( 1848:( 1833:( 1808:( 1787:( 1773:( 1752:( 1731:( 1685:( 1666:( 1621:( 1612:" 1592:( 1553:( 1535:( 1510:( 1485:( 1460:( 1438:( 1413:( 1388:( 1367:( 1339:( 1318:( 1300:( 1274:( 1245:( 1212:( 1208:. 1188:( 1162:( 1123:( 1104:( 1083:( 1052:( 1023:( 1009:( 991:( 964:( 950:( 936:( 893:( 879:( 864:( 850:( 835:( 816:( 802:( 761:( 734:( 700:( 676:( 643:( 624:( 591:( 560:( 546:( 517:( 503:( 469:( 440:( 418:( 394:( 370:( 360:) 352:· 346:· 338:· 331:· 325:· 319:· 313:· 308:( 300:( 297:) 291:) 253:( 229:| 223:/ 96:| 90:/ 49:.

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

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Serene Branson - Knowledge

Index