512:
participated in would not "transfer" to the person themselves! But that's ridiculous! The reality is that if a person is non-trivially covered participating in an event in reliable independent sources, it contributes towards that person's notability with respect to the GNG, and in the same way, if a blog post is non-trivially covered in reliable independent sources that explicitly mention the name of the blog or the blogger, I would argue, it contributes towards the notability of the blog with respect to the GNG. The non-inheritance of notability principle is meant to prevent things like a son inheriting his father's notability, or a restaurant inheriting its new proprietor's notability. --
397:
What they do contain, collectively, is enough facts about the blog that are worthwhile to include in a
Knowledge (XXG) article, to make it a non-trivial article. I think the current version of the article, as linked above, with over 700 words excluding references, counts as non-trivial. The GNG also explains: '"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.' Again, I think the intent of the guideline matters here, and I think the article is currently reasonably free of original research, which also being detailed, so that criterion seems to be satisfied
1378:"College publication" usually refers to magazines and other collections of student work. The paper here was clearly a collection of reviewed academic papers submitted by philosophy professionals and graduate students in multiple countries. It looks like the only topic of dispute here is whether the papers were reviewed by peers or by less authoritative individuals. Also, I already responded to your accusations of forum-shopping and canvassing in the WikiProject Philosophy noticeboard where you followed my link in an attempt to tell WikiProject Philosophy users that they shouldn't comment in your AFD.
1071:
concept from any features of the WP article itself. For example, we wouldn't want a renegade editor to change the wording of the article in a way that made it so non-notable that the article should then be deleted. And if you agree with me here, but then think opinionated sources in themselves do more to establish notability than I credit them for, then I think we just circle back to our earlier discussion.
235:
973:, but in point of fact, it doesn't. On the contrary, it references the reliable sources guideline which is written in terms of "all majority and significant minority views", making it clear that the notion of a reliable source is supposed to include publications that publish "views", i.e. opinions. As we can all no doubt acknowledge, opinion pieces often state true facts within them.--
870:
379:. The previous comments in this deletion discussion were written before I added a substantial new, referenced subsection to the article. Each of the mentions of the Slate Star Codex blog in the reliable sources may be relatively short – but together, they add up to enough material to sufficiently reliably source
1055:
My point was that any contentious claim in the article could be rewritten using in-text attribution, thus rendering the source's alleged unreliability irrelevant from a notability point of view, and that this would not be necessary for all the claims in the article, some of which are just of the form
526:
Look, the GNG is straightforward. If you want to change it, then you'll need to head over to the appropriate forum and get it changed. Until then, articles have to meet its requirements. If this blog had coverage that meets the GNG I would have found it and !voted accordingly. I didn't find any - now
1040:
My interpretation of WP policy is that the opinionated nature of the articles does count against them being RS's. You seem to disagree with the policy, not the interpretation. I do think this policy is a good one, because for example opinion pieces tend to mix around opinions with facts in ways that
552:
Wait, I'm not following this. I think the Weekly
Standard reference is insufficient for a WP article, but I've never seen the blog vs. blog entry notability distinction before. A blog is its blog entries. That's not inheritance as far as I can tell. Can you give an example of another AfD discussion
396:
coverage, and says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." So for the avoidance of doubt, it is OK, from the point of view of the GNG, that none of the independent sources cited have the SSC blog as their "main topic".
1337:
But it does address the rebuttal you made to my statement (which disproved the claim you made earlier that Kissel's paper constituted a "passing mention"). This is also a very simple matter which anyone with background in philosophy can clear up. And clearly I couldn't have foreseen that you would
1025:
If you really wanted, we could of course replace statements like "Scott
Alexander has written blog posts about scientific methodology" in the article with "A Vox writer has claimed that Scott Alexander has written blog posts about scientific methodology", but that would be unnecessary and silly. I
1070:
You say "Rendering the source's alleged unreliability irrelevant from a notability point of view," but I don't think in-text attribution would do that. Notability is not measured by the content or wording of an article, but rather by the nature of the sources. I think WP Notability is a distinct
833:
Why not? If we can write a substantial, well-referenced article based entirely on putting together material from what you characterise as mere mentions, what's the problem? And, if so, are we now to delete all articles in
Knowledge (XXG) that are based entirely on material from mere mentions -
493:- the difference may seem ridiculously picky but Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines state that Notability cannot be inherited. As to the cumulative effect of lots of trivial articles somehow adding up to something non-trivial, I'm not sure how many times I need to keep repeating myself.
511:
a blog but a collection of blog entries, an optional sidebar of links, and a usually-trivial About page? Come on! By your logic, no number of notable events in a person's life would make a biographical article about them pass the GNG, because the notability of the events that they notably
423:
cannot be selectively cherry-picked. Sources must be found that contain significant coverage, and those sources must be both reliable and independent. All these conditions need to apply at once - and no, a whole bunch of passing mentions cannot possibly add up to "significant coverage".
874:
1026:
don't see the relevance of classifying certain sources as "opinion pieces" per se to the article's notability, or to this deletion discussion. To show that a source was unreliable, you would have to do more than cast vague aspersions such as "it's an opinion piece".--
834:
including other articles about websites and biographical articles? Be very careful what you wish for, would be my advice. You might find that the scope of this exacting interpretation of what is, after all, a
Guideline, catches more than you would like.--
1191:. The style and format of the publication are very similar to how peer-reviewed journals usually are. In my experience, journals (at least in philosophy) don't specifically advertise further details; there certainly isn't any reason to suppose that it
383:. I would implore my fellow Knowledge (XXG) editors to employ their common sense here. Common sense suggests that if an otherwise roughly valid Knowledge (XXG) article can be written on a topic and reliably sourced, the topic satisfies one of the
452:
Like I said, you can't cherry-pick. "Significant coverage" is a straightforward term, defined in the GNG as "more than a trivial mention." Trivial mentions don't suddenly morph into "significant coverage" just because there's a lot of them.
391:
be non-trivial if they were reliably sourced with currently-available sources, no matter how much they were improved. Also, the GNG does not actually say that coverage should be "in-depth", or should not be "passing mentions". It requires
680:
Yeah, that all seems roughly correct to me, though note as per my vote below, that I don't think SSC meets notability criteria even if we assume significant coverage of blog posts is significant coverage of the blog itself. I do wish
1106:
and two paragraphs are given explaining and responding to his view. For a blog to be mentioned in a peer reviewed academic paper as a notable opinion worthy of elucidation/rebuttal counts as a good point in my view.
169:
1363:
You don't need a background in
Philosophy to tell the difference between a peer-reviewed journal and a college publication. I must ask you not to forum-shop or canvas for comments - it's disruptive behaviour.
586:
should be deleted... It seems obvious to me that notability must transfer along the same lines as merging, or merging is fundamentally broken as a tool. The notability of a set of articles should never go
1167:
It isn't peer reviewed at all, that's what you're not getting. It's a
College publication. Nowhere in the link you've given, or on the site for the publication, does it say it's been peer reviewed.
475:- is mostly not trivial - but (b) I have a fallback argument if you don't agree with (a), which is that even if you don't think the coverage is non-trivial, their cumulative effect is non-trivial.--
943:
I do worry people are falling into deletionism/dogpiling here, but my best search for multiple independent RS's covering SSC in significant coverage is nonetheless coming up short. I think the
628:
615:
242:
1319:- and the one you've started does not address any element of my deletion rationale. To be quite frank with you, if you've started it as a delaying tactic then that's not exactly a
599:. For instance, "Similarly, a website may be notable, but the owners or authors do not "inherit" notability due to the web content they wrote" seems to imply by omission that the
122:
163:
1041:
are difficult to discern. It's also easier to get coverage from an opinion piece or editorial, so that may lower the over GNG standards and have associated downsides.
632:
619:
857:- What's with the deletionism? It's not like Knowledge (XXG) will run out of space. SCC is a fairly prominent blog whose content is mentioned in many places.
1056:"there are Slate Star Codex posts about topic X" and so are not controversial. Again, I'm applying common sense here, rather than the letter of the policy.--
1342:
isn't peer reviewed when I decided to comment. The reason I didn't comment earlier is that I wasn't yet sure that this article ought to be preserved.
531:
this point over & over, it's not going to change my mind because I've based my nomination on
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies, not my personal opinion.
129:
1231:
467:
OK, I guess I should have spoken in a more lawyerly way. To be more precise, my full argument on this matter is actually (a) the letter of the GNG
1256:
438:
You say "a whole bunch of passing mentions cannot possibly add up to "significant coverage"" - but why not? What do you base this belief on?--
669:
591:
as a result of a merge. It is hence absurd for a blog that has multiple notable articles to not be itself notable. As far as I can see, the
95:
90:
251:
99:
673:
636:
281:
644:
17:
1146:
It's a peer reviewed journal published by a college. That doesn't make it any worse than other academic journals, as far as I know.
82:
797:
magazine, which is not a blog, and in newspapers in a syndicated column by
Bloomberg View columnist Noah Smith - also not blogs.--
745:
is well discussed in the blogosphere, but WP is not part of the blogosphere. Not now, anyway. If it were, this would pass GNG.
184:
969:
Nowhere does the GNG exclude opinion pieces as applicable reliable sources for notability purposes. You might believe that it
151:
267:
1132:
There's a world of difference between a "peer reviewed academic paper" and an essay that's part of a
College publication.
592:
1451:
823:
1478:
899:- it's not "deletionism" to request the removal of articles that don't meet the GNG, every editor should be working to
40:
240:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
145:
665:
652:
313:
1428:
There's no reason that a dispute about college journals should derail this discussion so I'm leaving it there.
1103:
1459:
1437:
1394:
1373:
1358:
1332:
1310:
1289:
1275:
1250:
1225:
1211:
1176:
1162:
1141:
1123:
1080:
1065:
1050:
1035:
1020:
982:
960:
935:
912:
886:
843:
828:
806:
788:
771:
754:
737:
698:
656:
623:
562:
540:
521:
502:
484:
462:
447:
433:
410:
371:
359:
225:
64:
141:
944:
472:
297:
271:
661:
648:
256:
1474:
1216:
This is just silly. If it was peer-reviewed, it would say so. It doesn't, so let's just leave it there.
767:
191:
86:
36:
924:
the entire notability is dependent upon one posting, not of particular importance . That's not enough.
528:
948:
1433:
1369:
1328:
1285:
1221:
1172:
1137:
908:
536:
498:
458:
429:
221:
1004:
862:
352:
177:
1000:
780:
574:
As far as I can tell, they're saying that it's not enough for a news article to merely talk about
205:
368:
303:
234:
1259:
claimed that they were the author and referred to the 'revise and review stage' for this paper.
1061:
1031:
978:
839:
802:
784:
517:
480:
443:
406:
157:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1473:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
489:
The article you have referenced does not talk about the blog itself, rather it talks about a
384:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1076:
1046:
1016:
956:
882:
817:
763:
750:
694:
558:
78:
70:
1446:
1008:
896:
213:
201:
1429:
1365:
1324:
1281:
1217:
1168:
1133:
904:
733:
684:
609:
547:
532:
494:
454:
425:
217:
1387:
1351:
1303:
1268:
1243:
1204:
1155:
1116:
55:
988:
931:
583:
1057:
1027:
974:
835:
798:
513:
476:
439:
402:
331:
319:
287:
1186:
116:
689:
would explain his (weird) view here, ideally with evidence from elsewhere on WP.
266:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1280:
That's fine, an RfC discussion will not have any effect on this AfD discussion.
1072:
1042:
1012:
952:
878:
858:
812:
746:
690:
569:
554:
1181:
You can see from the site that the papers are accepted or rejected by editors:
903:
Knowledge (XXG). This isn't a repository for articles on non-notable subjects.
367:. No in-depth coverage; provided references consist of bare passing mentions. —
729:
387:
for instituting the GNG in the first place – to exclude articles which could
212:
as required by the GNG, and let me pre-empt comments by saying that blogs are
1379:
1343:
1295:
1260:
1235:
1196:
1184:
1147:
1108:
992:
1230:
I don't think journals often specifically say that they are peer reviewed.
1189:
866:
926:
1011:, and I don't think the antagonistic tone of your comment is helpful.
951:
references come close, but they're opinion pieces and few in number.
1182:
996:
873:. Paul Bloom's Empathy book, which received widespread attention,
987:
I was thinking mostly about: "Editorial commentary, analysis and
1467:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
779:
It's a blog with a handful of links from other blogs. Fails GNG
1188:. The general editor, Ramona Ilea, is a faculty of philosophy
229:
419:
It appears that you've misinterpreted the GNG here. The term
793:
But Slate Star Codex was referenced in the print edition of
260:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
471:
met, the coverage of SSC in the reliable sources - such as
250:
among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has
1003:, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." from
553:
where this distinction or a very similar one was drawn?
380:
112:
108:
104:
176:
991:, whether written by the editors of the publication (
421:
significant coverage in reliable, independent sources
210:
significant coverage in reliable, independent sources
1315:
Well, Request for Comment discussions can go on for
895:
Those are passing mentions. Also, I'd remind you to
216:and are therefore not considered reliable sources.
190:
208:search are blogs or passing mentions. There is no
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1481:). No further edits should be made to this page.
351:: Fails GNG and NWEB after checking notability.
1001:statements attributed to that editor or author
401:to make an article, which is what matters. --
280:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
8:
606:inherit notability from the content on it.
582:. Of course, by this standard about half of
381:the current version of the article as of now
1234:on the WikiProject Philosophy noticeboard.
762:- Does not meet basic notability threshold.
254:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
811:Mentions are not significant coverage. —
274:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
1255:For whatever it's worth, a Reddit user
643:(I'm 49F6.) I've posed the question on
595:rule merely concerns association, not
204:because all sources located through a
1007:. I am not suggesting any changes to
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
629:2003:d4:fbc8:8047:900:5ee1:3907:49f6
616:2003:D4:FBC8:8047:900:5EE1:3907:49F6
999:) are reliable primary sources for
24:
593:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (web)
578:- it has to talk about the blog
233:
1102:The blog is actually cited by
576:a particular article on a blog
1:
1294:I don't see why it wouldn't.
270:on the part of others and to
202:General Notability Guideline
1498:
1460:13:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
1438:00:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
1395:00:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
1374:00:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
1359:00:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
1333:00:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
1311:00:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
1290:23:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1276:23:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1251:23:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1226:23:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1212:23:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1177:22:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1163:22:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1142:22:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1124:20:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1081:17:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
1066:23:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
1051:17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
1036:20:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
1021:00:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
983:22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
961:14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
936:09:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
913:07:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
887:06:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
844:23:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
829:22:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
807:20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
789:12:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
772:04:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
755:02:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
738:19:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
699:13:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
657:21:15, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
624:19:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
563:14:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
541:23:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
522:20:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
503:23:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
485:21:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
463:18:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
448:18:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
434:17:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
411:17:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
372:13:42, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
360:11:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
226:09:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
65:14:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
1470:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
863:Interdisciplinary paper
312:; accounts blocked for
282:single-purpose accounts
252:policies and guidelines
995:) or outside authors (
214:user-generated content
674:few or no other edits
637:few or no other edits
1340:Essays in Philosophy
676:outside this topic.
639:outside this topic.
1323:thing to be doing.
871:ESP discussion book
264:by counting votes.
243:not a majority vote
1232:I've opened an RFC
897:assume good faith
859:Philosopher paper
827:
677:
640:
345:
344:
341:
268:assume good faith
63:
1489:
1472:
1458:
1456:
1445:--Fails to pass
1391:
1383:
1355:
1347:
1307:
1299:
1272:
1264:
1247:
1239:
1208:
1200:
1159:
1151:
1120:
1112:
815:
688:
659:
626:
613:
573:
551:
357:
339:
327:
311:
295:
276:
246:, but instead a
237:
230:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
79:Slate Star Codex
71:Slate Star Codex
62:
60:
53:
34:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1479:deletion review
1468:
1452:
1450:
1389:
1381:
1353:
1345:
1305:
1297:
1270:
1262:
1245:
1237:
1206:
1198:
1195:peer-reviewed.
1157:
1149:
1118:
1110:
945:Weekly Standard
682:
662:FeepingCreature
649:FeepingCreature
607:
567:
545:
353:
329:
317:
301:
285:
272:sign your posts
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1495:
1493:
1484:
1483:
1463:
1462:
1440:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1253:
1127:
1126:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
989:opinion pieces
964:
963:
938:
918:
917:
916:
915:
890:
889:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
774:
757:
740:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
641:
614:please opine?
601:website itself
414:
413:
374:
362:
355:KGirlTrucker81
343:
342:
238:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1494:
1482:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1465:
1464:
1461:
1457:
1455:
1454:Winged Blades
1448:
1444:
1441:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1424:
1423:
1396:
1393:
1392:
1385:
1384:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1357:
1356:
1349:
1348:
1341:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1308:
1301:
1300:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1274:
1273:
1266:
1265:
1258:
1254:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1241:
1240:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1210:
1209:
1202:
1201:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1153:
1152:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1114:
1113:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
986:
985:
984:
980:
976:
972:
968:
967:
966:
965:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
939:
937:
933:
929:
928:
923:
920:
919:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
893:
892:
891:
888:
884:
880:
877:. And so on.
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
853:
845:
841:
837:
832:
831:
830:
825:
822:
819:
814:
810:
809:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
791:
790:
786:
782:
778:
775:
773:
769:
765:
761:
758:
756:
752:
748:
744:
741:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
723:
700:
696:
692:
686:
679:
678:
675:
671:
667:
663:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
625:
621:
617:
611:
605:
602:
598:
594:
590:
585:
584:List of blogs
581:
577:
571:
566:
565:
564:
560:
556:
549:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
530:
525:
524:
523:
519:
515:
510:
506:
505:
504:
500:
496:
492:
488:
487:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
460:
456:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
422:
418:
417:
416:
415:
412:
408:
404:
400:
395:
390:
386:
382:
378:
375:
373:
370:
366:
363:
361:
358:
356:
350:
347:
346:
337:
333:
325:
321:
315:
309:
305:
299:
293:
289:
283:
279:
275:
273:
269:
263:
259:
258:
253:
249:
245:
244:
239:
236:
232:
231:
228:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1469:
1466:
1453:
1442:
1425:
1388:
1380:
1352:
1344:
1339:
1338:assert that
1320:
1316:
1304:
1296:
1269:
1261:
1244:
1236:
1205:
1197:
1192:
1156:
1148:
1117:
1109:
1099:
970:
940:
925:
921:
900:
875:cites it too
867:Ethics paper
854:
820:
794:
776:
759:
742:
725:
603:
600:
596:
588:
579:
575:
508:
490:
468:
420:
399:sufficiently
398:
393:
388:
376:
364:
354:
348:
335:
323:
314:sockpuppetry
307:
296:; suspected
291:
277:
265:
261:
255:
247:
241:
209:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1104:reference 2
764:Glendoremus
672:) has made
635:) has made
597:composition
529:WP:BLUDGEON
394:significant
164:free images
1430:Exemplo347
1366:Exemplo347
1325:Exemplo347
1321:good faith
1282:Exemplo347
1218:Exemplo347
1169:Exemplo347
1134:Exemplo347
1005:WP:NEWSORG
993:editorials
905:Exemplo347
728:Fails GNG
685:Exemplo347
610:Exemplo347
580:as a whole
548:Exemplo347
533:Exemplo347
527:let's not
495:Exemplo347
491:blog entry
455:Exemplo347
426:Exemplo347
248:discussion
218:Exemplo347
200:Fails the
58:Sandstein
1475:talk page
507:But what
304:canvassed
298:canvassed
257:consensus
206:WP:BEFORE
37:talk page
1477:or in a
670:contribs
473:this one
336:username
330:{{subst:
324:username
318:{{subst:
308:username
302:{{subst:
292:username
286:{{subst:
123:View log
39:or in a
1058:greenrd
1028:greenrd
975:greenrd
922:Delete.
901:improve
836:greenrd
799:greenrd
781:Jsilter
777:Delete:
726:Delete:
514:greenrd
477:greenrd
440:greenrd
403:greenrd
385:reasons
300:users:
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1447:WP:GNG
1443:Delete
1193:wasn't
1073:Utsill
1043:Utsill
1013:Utsill
1009:WP:GNG
997:op-eds
971:should
953:Utsill
941:Delete
879:Deleet
813:JJMC89
795:Reason
760:Delete
747:Jytdog
743:delete
691:Utsill
570:Utsill
555:Utsill
365:Delete
349:Delete
142:Google
100:delete
50:delete
1317:weeks
932:talk
730:taion
389:never
278:Note:
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1434:talk
1426:Note
1370:talk
1329:talk
1286:talk
1257:here
1222:talk
1173:talk
1138:talk
1100:Keep
1077:talk
1062:talk
1047:talk
1032:talk
1017:talk
979:talk
957:talk
947:and
909:talk
883:talk
855:Keep
840:talk
803:talk
785:talk
768:talk
751:talk
734:talk
695:talk
666:talk
653:talk
633:talk
620:talk
604:does
589:down
559:talk
537:talk
518:talk
499:talk
481:talk
459:talk
444:talk
430:talk
407:talk
377:Keep
369:Keφr
222:talk
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1390:Bog
1354:Bog
1306:Bog
1271:Bog
1246:Bog
1207:Bog
1158:Bog
1119:Bog
949:Vox
927:DGG
645:VNN
332:csp
328:or
320:csm
288:spa
262:not
192:TWL
121:– (
52:.
1436:)
1372:)
1331:)
1288:)
1224:)
1175:)
1140:)
1079:)
1064:)
1049:)
1034:)
1019:)
981:)
959:)
934:)
911:)
885:)
869:.
865:.
861:.
842:)
805:)
787:)
770:)
753:)
736:)
697:)
668:•
660:—
655:)
627:—
622:)
561:)
539:)
520:)
509:is
501:)
483:)
469:is
461:)
446:)
432:)
409:)
338:}}
326:}}
316::
310:}}
294:}}
284::
224:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
1449:.
1432:(
1386:.
1382:K
1368:(
1350:.
1346:K
1327:(
1302:.
1298:K
1284:(
1267:.
1263:K
1242:.
1238:K
1220:(
1203:.
1199:K
1171:(
1154:.
1150:K
1136:(
1115:.
1111:K
1075:(
1060:(
1045:(
1030:(
1015:(
977:(
955:(
930:(
907:(
881:(
838:(
826:)
824:C
821:·
818:T
816:(
801:(
783:(
766:(
749:(
732:(
693:(
687::
683:@
664:(
651:(
647:.
631:(
618:(
612::
608:@
572::
568:@
557:(
550::
546:@
535:(
516:(
497:(
479:(
457:(
442:(
428:(
405:(
340:.
334:|
322:|
306:|
290:|
220:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.