Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hogan

2790:. You have painted yourself into this corner with your constant lack of good faith, apparent failure to read deeply, and frequent disparagement of competency throughout these processes. There's so much wrong about what you've said it's difficult to begin. Accusations of cabal-ism. Willful misreading. You diatribe on the smallest issue without first asking for clarification. Nobody stopped you from having input on this process BEFORE my close. I don't see anyone but yourself and the former Supermann disputing my actual close. For my part I weighed whether to contribute to discussion, then did about 30 minutes of reading. I chose to delete 3-0 on the merits; the three were editors in good standing, the "keep" made zero case and was a previously admitted bad actor, the article itself was a BLP with poorly sourced personal information. I closed quietly per DENY. Not closed per DENY. Quietly per DENY. That's how 3190:, and tweak a sentence at the television section. And do a half decent lead summary, after winging on COIN about the fails to content the lead section from the body I'd be stupid to do the same thing overtly here myself. And I forgot about his repeated attempts to get the Tate job films. The Take the High Road, Starship Troopers 3: Marauder and Sardar Udham roles are all significant. The upcoming Vikings Valhalla might be. I think Hogan's name was on the from page of an Irish Sunday last week. Anyway perhaps Hogan will narrate some Knowledge AfD, DRV and COIN dramas. Oh and I've forgot to sort about 20 wikilinks inbound to this page. If I go on any more I'll simply dox the middle name, do a Lucan, or wonder if his clan had a bit part in 1756:. This is listed in the Theatrical filmography section that CiphriusKane liked me to expand on earlier, but now has totally disavowed in his latest argument. The archived URL works. The author wrote, "It's a tall order to play a man as familiar and charismatic as Finch, but Stephen Hogan – the BBC Redwater star – makes a good fist of it. He captures Finch's outrage that people in the Hollywood community, and on the island of Jamaica, felt in a position to pontificate on how he should conduct his private life." The article featured a picture of Hogan. If this is not the treatment of a lead role, I don't know what is. Again, I haven't seen the work, but 95% here don't even bother to watch his movies that are widely available. 1178:. Which a few editors are bringing up with regularity, so lets look at it, beyond the title... so, it's somebody's opinion (which they are entitled to), it's long and I don't know which parts of it you mean. And (while many parts are reasonable) I plain don't agree with good parts of it, and it looks to be quite wrong-headed in places: "The person attempts to pick apart each argument with the goal of getting each person to change their '!vote'"... I mean what the gosh darn heck do you think we're supposed to doing here? Coming in with set opinions at the get-go and just shouting at each other? I get that this is common enough, but is this now supposed to be a 3263:: I have sorted the inbound wikilinks that were lost in the relist along with others. In the event this article goes deleted then returned as TOOSOON examining the deleted admins contributions history at the time of deletion/AfD closer will give a good indication of the inbound wikilinks to be restored. I think nearly 40 articles link here, but it is possible I have made one or two mistakes. Thankyou. Bigdelboy=Djm-mobile=Djm-leighpark. -- 1978:

by watching (several of) his works, instead of spending all these time taking me to ANI, hounding/gravedigging my edits even after I have apologized how many times now? (Personal attacks removed) If you ever come visit NYC, I wish we could go see a movie together of your choosing and I take you out for lunch. But I guess that is an offer you are not interested in, because that would be me corrupting you financially. I apologize.

2595:'s assertions about the pedia looking silly and making an error by deleting. Bludgeoning by some in this discussion and the resulting DRV has steered conversation from the central issues. I still hold the community has a responsibility to any living human subject to base articles on actual coverage (some of which might be interviews) and not as a mere accumulation of credits, however many. 3071:: No independent secondary sources. The prose at the top is direct from the subject, and the rest is directory information. The article links to many articles, but none link this one. The subject has no independent reviews. The WP:THREE or four references listed halfway up above fail the GNG. This biography and listing of work, impressive as it is, belongs at 52:. Headcount-wise there are about the same amount of keep and delete !votes with some marked as "keep" (I see that the nominator eventually changed their stance to (weak) keep but a number of other delete !votes that were posted later and/or aren't dependent on the nomination indicate that we shouldn't just speedy keep here). Most of the arguments revolve around 2772:

This was poor communication. My time's been ill-used. I get that I've said this above so and gotten no traction and I'm repeating myself, that few if any editors will get the point or care, and that if anything I'm going to get in trouble for repeating myself or "casting aspersions" on "an experienced editor" (per an editor above). Doesn't make me wrong tho.

2405:"keep" asserting editors feel any responsibility to the living human being described in this page? Without directly detailing biographic sources, this page is merely original research, a collection of works. I just thought since we've been discussing this article about an actual human for three weeks I'd introduce a policy central to all such discussions. 2551:- There should come a point where a large number of roles, some of which are marginal as to whether they are major roles, should add up to at least as much as two major roles. This is the sort of case where Knowledge winds up looking silly by deleting a biography. The subject has a long list of marginal roles that should more than add up to enough. 3315:; The Abbey Theatre in particular is a major stage, but there is a lack of reviews of the production, which makes me think that it is probably not that notable. I spent some time trying to unearth information about his theatre work when this was a draft, so I'm pretty sure there isn't a lot of coverage that hasn't already been used in the article. -- 2194:), another's might be "enough to, taken together, make a decent article, more than a stub", and so on. You'll have to develop your own opinion on that. And of course it depends on particular circumstances. But if all you can get out it is "Smith has two sisters" or "Smith was graduated from Bryn Mawr" then no, that would not be in-depth coverage. 501:, let's recall the guideline doesn't even use the term. The guideline instead uses "significant roles." So I am not gonna go down this rabbit hole, when the answers you seek are on the filmography by ctrl+f finding "lead role" - an imprecise term used by others. You at least should see those two aforementioned movies that are widely accessible. 2795:

personally for clarification on my close? Nope. Inquire inside the DRV about my process? Too much trouble. So you write a diatribe which will forever mark you as the editor you were as of that datestamp. Since then, I've just been watching you hang yourself, friend. Supermann is gone, which is what DGG would have liked to do but was

1006:. Apparently there's a lot of history around this. I don't know what the truth is here, but I do know we can't have fruitful discussions when the stated and actual reasons for the nom don't match. A nomination of "Marginal article, maybe acceptable on the merits, but looks to be quite possibly a work done for hire, so delete per 1068:. The nomination is and was perfectly formed and structured, and about as neutral as you can get. There is absolutely no reason to "start over" when an AFD, filed by a longterm respected administrator and former ArbCom member, is neutral and concise, and perfectly posted. (This message/clarification is for the closing admin.) 3028:, It seems you are the first editor in this AfD who started criticising other editors than presenting your opinions in a civil manner. It seems you are wasting the time of those folks who are reading comments here. Most parts of your comments are about "yourself and your previous comments". Please pay additional attention to 2441:

wouldn't provide enough context of what the amazonaws.com is all about. After I probably put down the 2nd link, another editor came in to use an upper-level link. That's I think what happened. I can accept such revisions. Please feel free to prove me wrong. I am not getting hung up by his birthday anymore. Thanks.

3337:

After looking this over I'm inclined to go with what Bonadea said. Since it's clear he isn't notable enough as film/TV actor, but he might be with the theater work. I just don't know enough about the notability of theater actors to say though and the guideline about it is sorta vague. So here we are.

2999:

And as to "...will forever mark you as the editor you were as of that datestamp... Since then, I've just been watching you hang yourself, friend. Supermann is gone..." an unfriendly person might fill in "Supermann is gone..." as "...and you're next paesano, capice?" You don't want to be giving people

2635:

Based on subsequent discussion, I'd be willing to keep the article; considering the disproportionate amount of trouble my nomination has caused, i regret making it--my approach to borderline notability is to let the community decide at AfD. Thinking more generally, we have often been very restrictive

1616:

that seems to be about what you are trying to do here. There enough AfD related drama at ANI already recently but I'm on the cusp of bring you people there. |Herostratus, at a rough glance you look like you unintentionly double !voted so I'd suggest changing that to a comment. There's a discussion

1417:

due to the fact that it is impossible to establish the reliability of their publishing process by the fact that we cannot determine an editorial board or process. Generally, I don't have an opinion on the other sources or whether this article should be kept or deleted, but that specific source is not

1249:

One error I already pointed out above is Hogan was never in any "minor documentaries." I do respect DGG, but if anyone doesn't have the courage to admit mistakes, then something is off. As he points out in his "my approach to admin functions," "Nobody should take anyone's advice as Gospel; I give the

847:

The article was denied at AfC for lacking notability and the creator's repeated insistence upon submitting it without proper improvement. I've worked on this article, and much as I'd want to vote keep I feel like Hogan's marginal notability is just too little at the time being. Of the three strongest

394:

Kingdom of Dust: The Beheading of Adam Smith. And then three lead roles in theaters: Mad as Hell (2018), Possible Worlds (2002), 1999 (Fast Food). You are not even reading the guidelines correctly. As I had said before, if you have difficulties accessing the world class libraries electronically, I am

3284:

based on his film/TV acting, but I am less sure about his work on the stage. NACTOR talks about "significant roles in multiple notable stage performances", so the question is what constitutes a notable stage performance. Very few individual stage productions have separate articles, after all. Hogan

3154:

has been blocked, partly on the basis of his behavior right here, but mainly as his behavior is "straw that broke the camel's back" as he's had an allegedly doleful history here (which may be entirely true). Supermann has a been a strong advocate for keeping this article, so his disappearance alters

2843:

is an essay. It does say that (if you don't have speedy-delete grounds) to "quietly revert or blank. Reserve listing the page as miscellany for deletion for serious matters, noting that a high-profile forum discussion of vandalism is the opposite of'deny recognition'". Fine I guess. I'm sure "revert

2288:

Stephen manages to portray an okay representation of a New York businessman well out of his comfort zone, but I have to admit I never really warmed to the man. He starts off as being quite whiney, moves along to a rather bolshie state and then finally gets overly sentimental about the Lord’s Prayer.

2171:

coverage. Could someone point me in a direction here? How could these sources be used to provide references to meaningful encyclopedic content? Say, if there's a paragraph written, but the only claims we would be verifying with that source are that X played Y role, that is a signal that the coverage

1947:

If you recall, there are folks who don't like the Times article either. Let's not forget that I didn't come up with the Times article in the history of the page. Another admin did. She encouraged me to push it back to mainspace after having been put back to draft. But she hasn't re-joined any of the

1132:

I can't really respond on the merits since you choose to try to make this a behavioral issue... I would be harrassingly bludgeoning you if I did that I guess, and I don't think we want to go down that path. So whatever. I will say that I don't like that you are maintaining that providing a diff with

65:

superior to the other. I note that the discussion was full of offtopic commentary, sockpuppetry and that some participants were sufficiently irritated by one participant that they struck out their !votes. TL;DR I don't see a clear consensus either in favour of keeping or deleting the article in this

3159:

this Hogan fellow fit in our collection of articles about actors"? So for my own personal curiosity I'm going to check 20 random actor articles -- I'll pick some random actor category and look at the first "A" article, the first "B" article, and so. I may as well write it down here, you never know,

2813:

Alright, sheesh, calm down. This is business, not personal. We're trying to figure if the communication here was imperfect and if so, how, and how to correct for future. OK looks like you think it was fine, so we're mostly going to have to agree to disagree about that, and OK. Couple points I want

2771:

delete on the basis of DENY. I didn't get that chance because I didn't know. It may be that DENY cases shouldn't be discussed openly, and maybe for good organizational reasons (sounds weird, but maybe). If so in future could you please just speedy-delete these pages rather than doing kabuki at AfD?

1977:

Maybe we are from different cultures. I wasn't dismissing your citing Times article at all. I was just trying to point out the fact that there are other naysayers on that article. I appreciate your help truly and especially when you add stuff instead of destroying stuff. You can be way more helpful

1962:

From what I recall there was 1 person unhappy with the article because they thought it was 4 paragraphs long. And I ken you didn't add the Times article, I did (the specific revision has been revdelled). And the admin said that there was marginal notability and there was naething stopping you from

2947:

I see where you're coming from about my contributions. You're correct that I made some misteps, yes. Overall, I don't know. We have different styles and all and mine usually works for me. We have different backgrounds I'm sure and that's always hard. I'm bad at interpersonal politics, and getting

2440:

is where we go for info that is publicly available. It's one of the corp filings at where he . This is more reliable than just a biographer/ghostwriter writing down a birthday without really checking his ID. I don't want to grave dig my own edits. I probably didn't use the first link, because it

2404:

policy. While we have supporting sources aplenty, we lack a single anchoring source which meets the BLP standard (independent reliable source directly detailing the subject, not merely their works). As of this datestamp, the subject's birthday is unsourced (look at the applied source and see). Do

1037:

I dunno. Maybe the deal is something like "We senior editors know what's what here but we can't prove it, so just go about your business and let us work" but in that case just give us the real reasons so we can discuss them, or else do an administrative delete on the article or whatever and stop

334:

regarding the two requirement laid down. This has been argued extensively on the talk page and on my talk page if not else where. There are sock puppets who have intentionally made disruptive editing that have been caught and blocked. Respectfully, I hope we could dedicate our time and energy on

2973:

OK so, one last thing, no, I would not recommend going down the path of eternal ennmity, here. You have to try to be collegial with editors even if you don't like them. I've gone hammer and tongs with editors and turned around and worked with them fine later. None of this is personal. It's just

1654:

I didn't double vote by accident. A pointed out that (in my opinion) the nom is malformed and we need to start over with the "This article was created under corrupt circumstances" front and center as a key point in the nomination. That's not a vote on the disposition of the article. Then, if we

628:

In that case, why don't you become a writer/director and reboot the entire franchise? It's not like you could otherwise time travel and delete 2/3/4/5 from history. And cancelling Stephen Hogan would gratify you and make you feel less awful?? His rendition of the theme song in 3 has brought the

2693:

The nomination did not cause any trouble, but I appreciate the concern from DGG. This overlong process did have the desired effect of revealing and removing a recalcitrant bad actor (apparently without removing from the pedia a weak article about a fine working actor). This was a good outcome.

3091:

Hi SmokeyJoe and GoodDay. I could reply here, in particular I could say that "Knowledge should not host biographies before any other independent reliable sources" sounds pretty idiosyncratic to me (I have not seen this before) and quite a high bar, and it would require the deletion of a good

243:

Does not appear to have had any really major roles; a lot of minor ones--mostly as figures in minor documentaries-- doesn't make for a notable actor. I don't see that any of the references discusses him in a substantial way--they're reviews of the minor films which, naturally mention him .

2794:

works. (Sometimes reading the all caps link is instructive.) Supermann approached me on my talk, I declined to reverse or relist but suggested DRV. At the DRV, the keep made no case and kept making no case over and over. Then comes Herostratus, full of judgement but little curiosity. Ask me

1264:

That doesn't make the nomination "malformed". It means that DGG mistook a minor non-notable film recreating real events as a documentary. It also doesn't mean DGG "doesn't have the courage to admit mistakes". No one as far as I can see has requested on his usertalk page that he change this.

3186:: (edit conflict) I give up. If I goto ANI about the bludgeons I'll simply be blocked for timewasting. I've spent too much time on this already, and I really need to put in a mention of Hogan's talent at accent's; really useful for nations bung in a little more about his tole in 1963:

moving it. I was trying to help you here, show that Hogan had more than a bunch of passing mentions in reviews, but honestly this really isna worth my time. There's just circles upon circles, and this is just all too frustrating when my attempts to help get dismissed like this

1581:, a lot of people don't seem to believe you and there's no way to prove it either way, but maybe they're right; you do have a past, and apparently your involvement is seen by some as annoying filibustering, so you might want to just back off and let other editors have their say. 1644:

Hey, don't threaten people with ANI. Either open a case or keep quiet. ANI is not for waving around to frighten other editors with empty threats. That's just really insulting and inflammatory. It's not a good way to move discussions like this forward in a calm manner, I don't

330:. I submit to you that maybe he wasn't written extensively like other Irish actors such as Liam Neeson, Colin Farrell, Pierce Brosnan, etc. Maybe he was shy or hasn't attracted the attention. I don't know because I don't know the guy. But his long list of works speak to his 1555:. It's actually in the article's reference section. As for the prior 2017 incident, I categorically deny again and again that Bliss Media has paid me to edit on Knowledge to promote them. They are not interested in having a presence here. In fact, I haven't touched 2652:

Don't be too hard on yourself. You acted in good faith; it appears that others in this thread have not done so, but you share no blame for that, you can't control how anyone else will choose to comport themselves. Incidentally, this is why I generally always let

2067:

There is a world of difference between asking somebody to contribute and telling them how to vote. Adding in weasel words does not make it okay. And please provide evidence of the accusations you are making against me or I will redact them again. Enough is enough

1088:"filed by a longterm respected administrator and former ArbCom member". The Knowledge is not a respecter of persons, regarding edits. A non-excellent edit is a non-excellent edit. Would you prefer a different paradigm? To make it clearer since you insist, the nom 1513:

If nobody deletes my contributions, I won't do so to others. That's how I roll and treat others. Knowledge is power. Information is power. More knowledge is good knowledge. It's at least a start. I can choose to discount that knowledge to bad knowledge. Thanks.

2502:

It's never appropriate to dox subjects in any way shape or form, particularly private persons, and "He has probably moved" is... not how BLP works. I redacted the links (technically should be oversighted, but not worth filing IMO), do not restore them but go to

2338:

more nuanced than that. Some interviews cannot count towards notability, but some certainly can. Depending on the type, content, and source where the interview was published, interviews can absolutely be used as sources and count for notability. See

2419:

Since when is there a requirement to include a "biographical source"? You need to be enormously famous for a reliable source to even consider writing a biography about you. If this were a requirement then we would be deleting 99% of our BLP articles.

2022:

It's a wall of texts that I think you may not want to read, esp those questioning your wisdom of citing the Times article on his audiobook narrator contributions. So people are chiming in again at the AfD. Your weak keep might just help swing it into

2662:

pass the GNG. The converse is almost always a bad way to think; just because a subject does not themselves pass the criteria of an SNG doesn't mean that sufficient independent, reliable sourcing doesn't exist. Ultimately, Knowledge shouldn't care

1911:: Thankyou for suggesting a top three references. As two seem to refer to the same Starship Troopers Marauder 3 role can someone consider replacing one of those with a source to a different role, possibly one for Sardar Udham perhaps? Thankyou. 1621:

if there's a need to discuss issues with concerns of any COI/UPE by Supermann but I'd strongly suggest an AGF of innocent until guilty approach until evidenced there. To state the obvious I am spending time at this to look for a simple clear best

1375:

Leaving aside the GNG, the guy is "notable" in the real world sense, in that he's had a long career, played a couple of title roles, played major roles (in the sense of being one of the 3-4-5 top players) in some other productions (which satisfied

2190:) is very vague on what "in depth" means -- all it says is that a passing mention in part of a sentence is not "in depth", an entire book is. In between, you're on your own. "A good meaty paragraph" is my standard, another guy's is "100 words" ( 395:

happy to upload the printout so that everybody can verify the theater roles are lead roles. But more importantly, you should just watch the movies that are widely accessible. I see you can speak Hindi. Have you seen his performance in

1196:

Calling a neutrally worded nomination by an experienced editor, who has historically tried to help the article-creator, of a borderline article "spurious" is casting aspersions. Posting 1,481 bytes of blather just now is yet more

2570:- I !voted to Endorse the deletion at DRV because there was no error by the closer and no claim of error by the closer (only disruption of the DRV by the appellant). But a Delete would be an error by the Knowledge community. 2298:(being non-independent). That is one of the main principles of Knowledge and AFD. Other sources are passing mentions or not mentions at all. So we're left with no significant independent coverage in reliable sources, much less 2275:, no matter how one tries to twist the evidence or bludgeon the discussion. I have an exceptionally hard time believing people are defending this article. To me it is a sign of how far Knowledge has fallen. Seriously people, 1410: 1477:

Thanks. Are you for deleting that literary magazine with a wikipedia article that doesn't cite any sources then? not to mention RS. I just hope we are doing things consistently across the board, instead of me being told

2657:

guide my decisions here. The SNGs like NACTOR are best treated as supplements to the GNG, and I tend to think of them as indicating where sources is usually so likely to exist that a subject who passes the SNG would

1548: 212: 60:

and whether the sources provided here/roles satisfy their requirements, but there are some concerns about promotionalism/COI too. It seems like there are arguments on both sides of each side and no argument is

1542:

for your continuous support. Having anticipated your paywall access issues, as the creator of the article, I had solicited help from the community and they have graciously helped! Pls see discussion at

678:

I saw you are having a great time with "Nyxaros" who is possibly behind the aforementioned three sock puppets. Glad to know you are at least not them. Happy editing and enjoy the rest of your weekend.

1441:

Huh, you're right, sorry. As to the passage, it is opinion, so reliability doesn't enter into it, as we assume that critics are truthfully writing what they think. What matters here is notability: is

469:. Here he has 5. What I do know is you and I have ZERO. His long list of filmography shows he is prolific. You can say it's not unique/innovative, but the guideline is simple. It's either or. Thanks. 1791:.. Please use "marshal" as keyword when you peruse these two sources. I can accept lumping them into just one single RS to demo his significant role as the baddie only second to the big alien bug. 558:

People with true good faith would not come on Knowledge after 20+ days and start commenting on deletion. I have never done so in my 15 years here, because I hope to inform readers. You are not a

303: 1805:

It's time to not move the goal posts every so often. I am not denying he is not as notable as some other Irish actors out there. But enough is enough with a long list of prolific contributions.

1563:

pages for sooooooooooooooo many days now. When one loses interest on some things, that's what happened. Maybe one day I will stop caring about this Stephen Hogan page too. Truth will come out.

1114:

Nothing whatsoever spurious about the nomination. And the link you just posted shows it. Casting clearly unwarranted aspersions on the filer merely seems to reveal how much you are willing to

2671:

they are notable (which is to say, that sources exist). If the SNGs have any use, it is in helping direct editors to search for where sources are likely to exist. But if the sources exist,

465:

With all due respect, I don't know whether you can't count or I can't. Multiple is defined by many dictionary out there as "consisting of, including, or involving more than 1." For example,

827:

Clearly sourced, cited and significant roles are present on his page, I don't know if this was added after this discussion, but it seems to me that the original premise of the afd is moot.

326:

Hi. You have already met me in person here in NYC, so you know I can't be him in an Asian skin. So the "closely connected" accusation is FALSE to begin with. Happy to meet you again per

3229:

Oh dear. Well here I spent a few hours comparing this article to others (for my own satisfaction) but I don't want to make anyone sad, so skip it. I put in the talk page for posterity.

2741:(this wasn't said and it took some of back-and-forth and effort before this became clear. My assumption -- everyone's i suppose -- was that the close was on the merits of the article.) 1771:, "Omar Anoke, the heroic sky marshal in charge of battling the big bugs, is a charismatic celebrity and chart-topping singer whose onstage movements and militaristic song list suggest 1948:

conversation, saying it could go either way. I will try to follow up with her and see if she is willing to join now. She is the other editor I mentioned at the top of the DRV. Thanks.

2734:

COMMUNITY: OK, let's take the time and effort to discuss this article on the its merits. Let's look at refs and find or not find sufficient material to support an article and so on.

2897:

twice blocked them etc etc etc..." Well of course I wasn't. How could I have been? I can't read minds. I can't follow every contetemps like that. I'm mostly busy doing other stuff.

1933:. I genuinely have nae idea why Supermann keeps touting sources that others have questioned the notability-determining of, while ignoring an article about his audiobook narration 910: 906: 629:

militarism in 1 to an all time high level. For that reason, I want readers not to be deprived of the opportunities to read about the actor on wikipedia. We agree to disagree.

173: 2504: 2488:

It's a 2014 address. 7 YEARS AGO. CLOSE TO 8. He has probably moved. I am not his groupie enough to show up at his door step to ask for autograph. I am not harassing him.

422:

Making claims do not verify his roles. It needs reliable sources to support the claims. As I can see, the subject has played zero lead roles. The guidelines are very simple.

1133:

a simple intro of "More background" is casting aspersions. Sounds like "how dare you libel someone by showing what they said" rubric which... I'm not super on board with.

923:("One of leading cultural institutions"). That's in addition to his other roles which are smaller but there are a whole lot of them: recurring character (4 episodes) in 1842: 263: 206: 2731:

NOMINATION: I think this article doesn't meet our standards. (No mention of anything about the author so as always the natural assumption is that that's not an issue.)

2373:. Since most high-quality magazines would include substantial commentary in the introduction to an interview, such an interview would likely work towards GNG, but not 2507:

if you like. (But I believe that birthdates are frequently not ref'd and I think it is de facto common practice to permit this if there's no dispute or objection.)

2467:

appropriate to include links, both here and the one used as a citation for the birth date in the article, that includes mailing addresses of the subject? ~Cheers,

283: 860:, is currently at AfD. Also, the DublinLive article to me is a bit weak for contributing to notability as it's largely Hogan talking about his experience on set 2436:

Here is the birthday proof at . When anyone forms a company in the UK, they need to provide IDs to the govt. I know that because I am a tax accountant. And the

849: 799: 2252:, is precisely the problem: very minor and yet encyclopedic--but not based on the GNG, only on the narrowest and most inclusionist interprations of the GNG. 2767:

is fine I guess (if that's the usual practice). If I'd known that DENY was in play, I would have (after investigation and consideration) probably argued to

3000:

any false impressions like that, I hope. You know how people are. (Dont' worry, I get that your back us up right now (mine too!) so don't worry about it.)

1544: 120: 3160:

somebody might care. As always, I'll report the results without fear or faver (just want the facts), so here goes! It's background data, I'll hat it, and

655:

While you are being negative, I actually improved it in my honest opinion, thanks to new coverage by the Dublin Live. Your research skill is impressive.

1618: 644: 105: 1453:. It's... slim. He's never published an article in a real magazine that I can find. He has reviewed a number of films, so he's not my Uncle Dwight, and 1387:(and that's just his film and TV credits, he has also had an extensive career at top British theaters). If so, rarely, and we probably shouldn't have. 2636:

about voice actors, as with other people associated with film who do not actually appear--I think perhaps we should take a broader approach here.

399:? I am not saying that is a lead role, but once you compare the aforementioned two with his role in Sardar, you can tell what a lead role is. Thanks. 2881:

Ok, so, I couldn't have had input before your close because I wasn't aware of the AfD -- can't be everywhere after all. In the dif above you wrote "

2401: 2844:

or blank" can be extended to "delete" also, and "miscellany for deletion" extended to AfD also. (I personally wouldn't describe the creation of

588:

Well I was reading on Starship Troopers and went down a rabbit hole and it led me here. Just trying to help out man no need to get aggressive

856:

is not a "lead role" as the creator or the article claims, but rather a bit part that gets few hits on Google, and the other strong claim,

2839:

OK, you're saying "I closed quietly per DENY. Not closed per DENY. Quietly per DENY. That's how WP:DENY works." Alright, I'm hearing you.

2098:

Undecided after nominator's latest comments regarding voice actor and other film professions notability (something for me to think about)

3209: 2478: 2036: 1429: 1053: 1025: 146: 141: 3155:

the dynamic from this point forward, just letting people know. I expect this thread will close soon, but I got to wondering "where

519:. You are requested to provide sources here that indicates "significant roles" of the subject than making false claims regarding a 3246:: Switching to delete per harrassment on talk page that seems designed to really fuck me up. I'm more fucked than this article. 2047: 1096:

and one could say spurious if so inclined. I'm confident this wasn't deliberate, but intent doesn't matter here. More background

150: 2534:

not only passes GNG but he's described as 'Well known' and 'known for numerous roles' which supports his real-world notability.

3297: 1496: 915: 605:

before embarking on a deletionist path. Then I will truly believe you have good faith and are informed. Have a good weekend.

100: 93: 17: 1852: 857: 2343:, which while an essay, contains good advice for use of interviews. Many interviews would not be appropriate for such uses, 2289:

Having said that, if that’s what the guy who it was based on was like then fair play to Hogan for staying true to the person.

1688:. I can't read thru a bunch of essays to figure out what you're trying to say. Just be plain, man. And don't lump me in with 1362: 368:

did Hogan has played any lead role? If yes, please specify which one as I failed to find any significant role at the moment.

133: 1319:

EDIT: I have no idea what that publication is; it's opinion, so reliability is not a factor. Notability would be tho, and I

227: 3322: 1760: 887: 853: 602: 384: 382:

It's right there in the article/filmography. Two film roles: Hogan played Sky Marshall Omar Anoke in science-fiction film

331: 194: 3041: 1888: 528: 488: 455: 373: 114: 110: 1368:(the London Times) which has several paragraphs just on Hogan, an editor has averred (I can't access it cos paywall). 2400:

In my reading of this discussion and the associated DRV, I'm still surprised to find no mention of the violation of

787: 3092:

percentage of our bio articles I'd guess, and that this is something we could think about together. However, if I

3364: 2575: 2556: 1867: 1799: 1380:, including stage, and filled out his CV with many recurring roles on TV and film roles. Bottom line: I bet that 1333: 40: 1215:

Well truth is a defense, but OK. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree over what AfD is basically for, I guess.

893: 188: 931: 1701:

As to the rest, do you have any thoughts on the article itself? That's what we're supposed to be hare about.

1445:

and/or the article author (Justin Richards) notable enough for their opinion to be worthwhile? I don't know.

879:

A "lead role" does not require you to be a production's main star. Hogan was the 4th named in the credits in

3205: 3125:. Zero secondary sources are not enough. That’s why what prose there is is stating factoids without context. 2473: 2031: 1916: 1631: 1424: 483:

Which source(s) indicate his lead roles? Please provide here so that we can better understand your sources.

71: 2207:

But if an entire paragraph is written about someone and all you can get out of it is "Smith played Puck in

1352:

in the sense of the names of his dogs etc, altho you do have bits like "I'm a bit of a history freak" etc.)

3347: 3329: 3272: 3255: 3238: 3224: 3173: 3137: 3113: 3084: 3063: 3045: 3037: 3009: 2808: 2781: 2703: 2688: 2647: 2627: 2624: 2604: 2579: 2560: 2543: 2516: 2497: 2483: 2450: 2429: 2414: 2386: 2360: 2329: 2311: 2307: 2261: 2243: 2220: 2181: 2158: 2141: 2116: 2077: 2073: 2059: 2041: 1987: 1972: 1968: 1957: 1942: 1938: 1920: 1818: 1749: 1710: 1635: 1590: 1572: 1523: 1508: 1504: 1491: 1470: 1434: 1396: 1274: 1270: 1259: 1224: 1210: 1206: 1191: 1127: 1123: 1109: 1077: 1073: 1057: 1029: 982: 978: 960: 869: 865: 836: 817: 772: 758: 744: 730: 687: 673: 664: 650: 638: 623: 614: 592: 583: 559: 553: 544: 538: 532: 524: 510: 492: 484: 478: 459: 451: 409: 377: 369: 348: 315: 295: 275: 255: 184: 75: 1340:, which looks like a legit mag (willing to be instructed otherwise) about popular culture stuff. It is a 3360: 3292: 3234: 3169: 3109: 3005: 2799:. You have outed yourself. I'm watching women's college basketball with friends. Things could be worse. 2777: 2512: 2325: 2216: 2177: 2112: 1753: 1706: 1586: 1466: 1392: 1250:

best I can, but I've been sometimes wrong." Hopefully I am not taking his words out of context. Thanks.

1220: 1198: 1187: 1105: 1049: 1021: 994:. The actual argument, apparently, to delete the article is that the article creator and main defender, 956: 832: 36: 1323:

that this source isn't useful for GNG purposes and should be ignored (its still usable in the article).

1118:

this discussion along with Supermann, as has already been noted by Djm-leighpark, BusterD, and myself.

3075:, where it is. Knowledge should not host biographies before any other independent reliable sources. 1003: 3251: 3220: 3197: 3033: 2592: 2571: 2552: 2340: 1788: 1560: 1479: 1041: 1013: 327: 311: 291: 271: 234: 2283:

and the following ridiculous paragraph on a blog (self-published) review-site equates to notability?

1306: 643:

Well the article can't really be improved further. That's not "cancelling" it's literally Knowledge

3268: 3133: 3080: 2845: 2493: 2446: 2382: 2271:. Clearly promotional, advertisement article on a non-notable mainly-voice actor who does not meet 2154: 2055: 1983: 1953: 1814: 1740: 1568: 1519: 1487: 1414: 1255: 768: 740: 683: 660: 634: 610: 579: 506: 474: 405: 344: 220: 2365:

My understanding is that interviews can only contribute to notability if they contain significant

2050:." One never knows what they is gonna get. Like in the case of asking CiphriusKane to chime in. 1727:

rabbit hole that is so deep that nobody seems to be able to get out of. But I just realized essay

1413:, it does not meet the threshold of reliability as required of reviews establishing notability at 3343: 3338:

I could see the article being kept depending on how "significant roles" is interpreted though. --

3201: 3101: 2681: 2468: 2353: 2239: 2134: 2026: 1912: 1872: 1768: 1728: 1627: 1605: 1419: 1175: 1115: 137: 67: 2667:

a subject is notable (in the sense that there is sufficient sources about that subject), merely

1348:

is a tabloid, so that could be discussed. (The interview is about a film Hogan is in, not about

3191: 3325: 3059: 2804: 2796: 2699: 2618: 2600: 2591:

As the fellow who previously closed this process as "delete", I find it hard to disagree with

2410: 2303: 2069: 2017: 1964: 1934: 1500: 1266: 1202: 1119: 1069: 974: 861: 89: 29:

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

3359:

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

2316:"interviews do not count towards notability"... you mean if I score a five-page interview in 951:. He also had other film roles and roles at top theatres but I don't know how big they were. 466: 35:

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

3281: 3230: 3165: 3118: 3105: 3025: 3001: 2882: 2787: 2773: 2613: 2539: 2508: 2321: 2299: 2272: 2257: 2212: 2173: 2108: 1847: 1806: 1702: 1613: 1582: 1537: 1462: 1388: 1377: 1216: 1183: 1101: 1045: 1017: 952: 828: 754: 726: 357: 336: 57: 200: 3307: 3247: 3216: 2437: 2425: 2234:

per Herostratus. This is undoubtedly a very minor actor, but they do narrowly pass GNG.

2012:

While it was appropriate, imo, to contact an editor previously involved with the article,

1732: 1623: 1313: 670: 647: 620: 589: 567: 550: 335:

something more meaningful instead of this. Plus, correction on facts. He was never in any

307: 287: 267: 2720:

The nomination caused trouble. Here's how I'd characterize the process, based mainly on

3264: 3151: 3129: 3122: 3076: 2890: 2840: 2791: 2764: 2738: 2489: 2442: 2378: 2191: 2150: 2064: 2051: 1979: 1949: 1810: 1689: 1609: 1578: 1564: 1553:

Actors make their voices heard for audiobooks | Ireland | The Sunday Times (archive.md)

1515: 1483: 1446: 1383: 1291: 1251: 1007: 995: 966: 808: 764: 736: 679: 656: 630: 606: 575: 563: 502: 470: 401: 365: 340: 1457:

has a stable of (amateur?) reviewers, so it's not some guy's blog... but still... for

3339: 3312: 3302: 3097: 3029: 2676: 2654: 2643: 2348: 2249: 2235: 2129: 2125: 1784: 1776: 1724: 1685: 1682: 1679: 1676: 1673: 1295: 1294:

is not in play. First of all (as deeper looking has found), the guy easily meets the

1171: 1168: 1165: 1162: 1159: 920: 571: 520: 498: 361: 251: 129: 81: 53: 2746:

If there's another way to intepret those diffs I'd be sincerely glad to be educated.

562:, are you? One notorious editor who touched on this topic has been caught. They are 3317: 3187: 3055: 2800: 2695: 2596: 2406: 1795: 1772: 1409:

the same as the literary magazine with a Knowledge article. Also, as brought up at

925: 905:

a somewhat important role in Dracula films, and is one of the four roles mentioned

881: 516: 396: 167: 3287: 2535: 2253: 2187: 1745: 1556: 750: 722: 2894: 2421: 1800:

https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/dublin-actor-stars-fascinating-new-21993385

1764: 2100:

Delete per nom and Softlavender. Coverage not in-depth. Fails GNG and NACTOR.

1461:

purposes I'd tend to not want to include that, thanks for pointing that out.

848:

claims to "significant roles", the only one that would really convince me is

735:

Thanks for catching the sock! So User:Nyxaros2 is unrelated to User:Nyxaros?

2320:

that's not a factor in whether I'm wikinotable? And that's a key principle.

998:, was paid for that. This hasn't been brought up here but was an important 598: 2149:

Two sources provided by Herostratus look good enough to count towards GNG.

3194:, I'm mentally done on this AfD. Thankyou. 00:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 1802:, if we are really talking about true AGF of innocent until proven guilty. 436:

notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions;

3104:, which some editors here seem to have latched onto. So I guess I won't. 2886: 2638: 898: 389: 246: 969:

is once again bludgeoning and casting aspersions and attacks against me

3072: 1450: 2885:, before your posting above, I must ask whether you were you aware of 1744:, directed by Cassie McFarlane, Hogan played the significant role of 1783:

wrote, "the Sky Marshal's saber rattling pop single...calls to mind

1549:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request/Archive_112

1418:

an adequate review nor is it the same as the literary mag. ~Cheers,

1158:

So... even tho I prefer to speak colleague-to-colleague and not be

1497:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion#Nominating_article(s) for deletion

2922:

Anyway we're not making progress here, so OK. Agree to disagree.

1010:" would have been a proper nom. We can't work blindfolded here. 3355:

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

2852:, but I don't know much about vandalism and you guys do). So.. 1201:, which has further served to make this AFD into a trainwreck. 2463:

With moderate to significant alarm, I ask rhetorically: is it

2103:

Keep per Herostratus' reply below regarding depth of coverage.

1893: 1780: 1449:

is the author's (Justin Richards) work there, he's apparently

3121:. Yes. WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. The policy root for my !vote is 790:

to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

2974:

business. I'm fine with working with you in future, anytime.

1930: 1552: 2948:

good at that isn't so easy if you don't have it naturally.

304:

list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions

1731:. So hopefully, we are toe to toe with this other essay: 2675:, even if we can't find any SNG to justify anything. -- 1604:: The closer of the DRV specially mentioned issues with 2725: 2721: 2013: 1794:

3) Finally, his significant role as detective Swain in

1382:

we have never deleted an article on an actor with a CV

1097: 1066: 999: 970: 163: 159: 155: 1317:

may not be super big but it has a decent article here.

219: 3100:, partly on the basis of a rather wrongheaded essay, 2211:

at the Old Howard", what's in the rest of paragraph?

935:, recurring roles (none more than a few episodes) in 1889:"Starship Troopers 3: Marauder Blu-Ray Review - IGN" 1619:

Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Supermann

467:

Multiple | Definition of Multiple by Merriam-Webster

2505:

Knowledge:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

2124:Sources already noted above are sufficient to pass 805:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 2277:a couple of sentences about his audiobook readings 1929:I'd be tempted to replace the Variety one for the 1290:of course, on the merits of the article alone, if 1064:There is nothing "malformed" about the nomination. 3164:, so y'all please don't have me blocked, thanks. 3128:OTHERSTUFF exists. NSPORTS in particular is bad. 763:So no consequences to User:Nyxaros? Interesting. 597:Well, I hope you at least find time to watch the 549:, your comments are a little passive aggressive. 43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3367:). No further edits should be made to this page. 619:All the films after the first were pretty awful 302:Note: This discussion has been included in the 282:Note: This discussion has been included in the 262:Note: This discussion has been included in the 2286: 264:list of Television-related deletion discussions 1843:"FINCH'S ANGER MANAGEMENT COURSE; Mad as Hell" 2167:I fail to see how any of it could be seen as 1735:. To entertain that request for 3 RS anyways: 1405:As a comment, the Blueprintreview website is 850:Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution 800:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2021 November 6 233: 8: 2786:We all can agree your time's been ill-used, 447:unique, prolific or innovative contributions 388:...He played the lead role of Adam Smith in 356:a non-notable actor with minor roles. Fails 284:list of Ireland-related deletion discussions 121:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! 1545:Knowledge:Help_desk/Archives/2021_August_10 3280:– To me it is clear that he does not meet 2889:'s previous attempts to help rehabilitate 2296:interviews do not count towards notability 339:. Thanks for your time and consideration. 301: 281: 261: 1692:, I don't know him and I'm my own person. 1659:start over (which, probably not), on the 332:Knowledge:Notability (people) - Knowledge 858:Kingdom of Dust: Beheading of Adam Smith 1833: 1411:another AfD also commenting that review 2021: 1672:I prefer to speak English rather than 992:Malformed nomination, let's start over 721:, per nominator--not a notable actor. 669:I am quite impressive in many aspects 441: 431: 1499:Here's the guide for starting an AfD 7: 3073:https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0389621/ 2106:/I am but a reed swayed by the wind/ 2046:It's "weak" and "might." It's like " 2737:CLOSE: Article deleted on basis of 2616:, just a long list of small roles. 2377:it was in a prominent publication. 897:he was listed 6th, but he played a 574:. I hope you are not one of them. 749:I think it was a troll name, yes. 24: 1841:Walker, Tim (February 21, 2018). 929:, recurring role (6 episodes) in 2402:WP:Biographies of living persons 2048:Life is like a box of chocolates 2016:is completely inappropriate per 1626:argument for a keep. Thankyou. 1309:reviewing his acting in a film. 537:Off-topic but you could be more 432:1. Has had significant roles in 328:Knowledge:Meetup/NYC - Knowledge 106:Introduction to deletion process 3298:The Importance of Being Earnest 1866:Leydon, Joe (August 13, 2008). 916:The Importance of Being Earnest 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 2797:just too personally kind to do 1004:the Conflict of Interest board 913:(the second lead, I think) in 1: 3348:11:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC) 3330:12:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC) 3285:has had significant roles in 3273:00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC) 3256:10:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 3239:05:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 3225:10:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 3174:00:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 3138:05:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 3114:00:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC) 3085:13:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC) 3064:20:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC) 3046:14:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC) 3010:00:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC) 2809:18:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC) 2782:11:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC) 2704:19:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC) 2689:18:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC) 2648:18:16, 19 November 2021 (UTC) 2628:22:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2605:21:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2580:03:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2561:03:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2544:02:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2517:05:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2498:04:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2484:04:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2451:04:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2430:02:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2415:00:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2387:19:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC) 2361:14:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2330:05:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2312:23:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 2262:01:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2244:16:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 2221:17:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 2182:13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 2159:13:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 2142:12:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 2117:10:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 2078:09:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2060:05:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 2042:20:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 2014:the tone of this notification 1988:19:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1973:16:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1958:16:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1943:11:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1921:09:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1819:06:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1779:' contestant." Scott Lowe of 1761:Starship Troopers 3: Marauder 1711:06:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1636:03:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1591:03:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1573:03:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1524:04:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1509:05:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1492:03:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1471:03:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1435:02:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1397:02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1275:04:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1260:04:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1225:07:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1211:07:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1192:06:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1128:05:56, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1110:05:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1078:01:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 1058:02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 1030:02:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 983:09:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC) 961:03:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC) 888:Starship Troopers 3: Marauder 870:16:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC) 854:Starship Troopers 3: Marauder 837:11:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC) 818:10:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC) 603:Starship Troopers (franchise) 497:Before we get bogged down in 385:Starship Troopers 3: Marauder 76:10:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC) 3032:, neutrality, civility, and 1868:"Starship Troopers 3 Review" 1336:is a full long interview in 1000:point at the deletion review 773:17:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC) 759:15:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC) 745:14:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC) 731:14:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC) 688:15:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC) 674:11:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC) 665:00:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC) 651:06:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 639:05:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 624:01:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC) 615:15:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 593:14:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 584:13:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 554:10:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 533:08:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC) 511:19:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 493:17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 479:19:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 460:14:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 449:to a field of entertainment. 410:14:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 378:14:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC) 349:12:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC) 316:02:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC) 296:02:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC) 276:02:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC) 256:02:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC) 3215:(Djm-mobile=Djm-leighpark) 3096:do that, I might hauled to 2854:Why didn't you just do that 2294:Please note carefully that 1809:must be respected. Thanks. 1789:I'm Proud to Be an American 1661:merits of the article alone 1002:. It's being argued now at 96:(AfD)? Read these primers! 3384: 1887:Scott Lowe (12 May 2012). 362:general notable guidelines 2371:by the interviewer/author 1451:done some legit film work 932:Kat & Alfie: Redwater 3357:Please do not modify it. 2369:analysis and background 1551:and the archived URL at 1182:? Great Caesar's ghost. 1092:neutral and concise but 894:Dracula: The Dark Prince 32:Please do not modify it. 2763:Deleting on grounds of 1723:Hut 8.5 took us down a 2814:to get clarity on tho: 2612:Not seeing sufficient 2291: 1663:my vote is to keep it. 1577:With all due respect, 973:, and I've had enough 560:Knowledge:Sockpuppetry 3293:Jermyn Street Theatre 3162:nobody has to read it 1754:Jermyn Street Theatre 94:Articles for deletion 2593:User:Robert McClenon 2341:Knowledge:Interviews 1763:review, film critic 1608:, and quite frankly 1561:Thomas Price (actor) 899:bluelinked character 3054:- Nonotable actor. 1798:per Dublin Live at 1307:full-size paragraph 965:Fuck it, I'm out. 911:Algernon Moncrieff 796:Relisting comment: 3328: 3200:comment added by 3038:TheBirdsShedTears 2673:the sources exist 2172:is not in depth. 2107: 1482:again and again. 1344:property and the 1311:The publication, 1044:comment added by 1038:wasting our time. 1016:comment added by 820: 816: 545:TheBirdsShedTears 525:TheBirdsShedTears 517:assume good faith 485:TheBirdsShedTears 452:TheBirdsShedTears 370:TheBirdsShedTears 318: 298: 278: 111:Guide to deletion 101:How to contribute 3375: 3321: 3213: 3192:Delaney's Donkey 3119:User:Herostratus 2883:User:Herostratus 2788:User:Herostratus 2679: 2622: 2481: 2476: 2471: 2351: 2186:Well, the rule ( 2132: 2105: 2039: 2034: 2029: 1900: 1899: 1884: 1878: 1877: 1863: 1857: 1856: 1851:. Archived from 1848:The New European 1838: 1541: 1432: 1427: 1422: 1060: 1032: 815: 813: 806: 804: 793: 791: 548: 337:documentary film 238: 237: 223: 171: 153: 91: 34: 3383: 3382: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3365:deletion review 3195: 3148: 3146:Arbitrary break 2677: 2620: 2572:Robert McClenon 2553:Robert McClenon 2479: 2474: 2469: 2438:Companies House 2349: 2130: 2037: 2032: 2027: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1886: 1885: 1881: 1865: 1864: 1860: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1738:1) In the 2018 1535: 1455:blueprintreview 1443:blueprintreview 1430: 1425: 1420: 1361:3) There is an 1314:Blueprintreview 1094:also misleading 1039: 1011: 809: 807: 786: 784: 568:User:Sleptlapps 542: 180: 144: 128: 125: 88: 85: 48:The result was 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3381: 3379: 3370: 3369: 3351: 3350: 3332: 3308:A Doll's House 3275: 3258: 3241: 3227: 3176: 3152:User:Supermann 3147: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3126: 3088: 3087: 3066: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2898: 2891:User:Supermann 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2735: 2732: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2630: 2607: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2546: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2433: 2432: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2332: 2285: 2284: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2162: 2161: 2144: 2119: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1924: 1923: 1902: 1901: 1879: 1858: 1855:on 2021-07-28. 1832: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1803: 1792: 1757: 1736: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1690:User:Supermann 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1639: 1638: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1579:User:Supermann 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1400: 1399: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1300: 1299: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1199:WP:BLUDGEONING 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1081: 1080: 1034: 1033: 996:User:Supermann 988: 987: 986: 985: 963: 874: 873: 852:. His role in 840: 839: 803: 794: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 715: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 691: 690: 564:User:Dollyplay 535: 428: 427: 426: 425: 424: 423: 415: 414: 413: 412: 351: 320: 319: 299: 279: 241: 240: 177: 124: 123: 118: 108: 103: 86: 84: 79: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3380: 3368: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3352: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3336: 3333: 3331: 3327: 3324: 3323:contributions 3320: 3319: 3314: 3313:Perth Theatre 3310: 3309: 3304: 3303:Abbey Theatre 3300: 3299: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3283: 3279: 3276: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3259: 3257: 3253: 3249: 3245: 3242: 3240: 3236: 3232: 3228: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3202:Djm-leighpark 3199: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3175: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3158: 3153: 3150: 3149: 3145: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3124: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3095: 3090: 3089: 3086: 3082: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3067: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3043: 3039: 3035: 3034:WP:DISCUSSAFD 3031: 3027: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2896: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2846:Stephan Hogan 2842: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2745: 2740: 2736: 2733: 2730: 2729: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2687: 2686: 2685: 2680: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2661: 2656: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2640: 2634: 2631: 2629: 2626: 2625: 2623: 2615: 2611: 2608: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2587: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2547: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2530: 2529: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2477: 2472: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2403: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2352: 2346: 2342: 2337: 2333: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2318:Rolling Stone 2315: 2314: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2292: 2290: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2230: 2229: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2174:— Alalch Emis 2170: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2156: 2152: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2133: 2127: 2123: 2120: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2109:— Alalch Emis 2104: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2040: 2035: 2030: 2024: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1931:Times article 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913:Djm-leighpark 1910: 1907: 1906: 1897: 1895: 1890: 1883: 1880: 1875: 1874: 1869: 1862: 1859: 1854: 1850: 1849: 1844: 1837: 1834: 1830: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1790: 1786: 1785:Lee Greenwood 1782: 1778: 1777:American Idol 1774: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1742: 1737: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1691: 1687: 1684: 1681: 1678: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1628:Djm-leighpark 1625: 1620: 1615: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1600: 1599: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1539: 1533: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1489: 1485: 1481: 1480:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1436: 1433: 1428: 1423: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1379: 1374: 1373: 1367: 1366: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1322: 1318: 1316: 1315: 1308: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1286: 1285: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1189: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1170: 1167: 1164: 1161: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1036: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 990: 989: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 933: 928: 927: 922: 921:Abbey Theatre 918: 917: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 895: 890: 889: 885:, and 3rd in 884: 883: 878: 877: 876: 875: 872: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 846: 842: 841: 838: 834: 830: 826: 823: 822: 821: 819: 814: 812: 801: 798:Relisted per 797: 792: 789: 774: 770: 766: 762: 761: 760: 756: 752: 748: 747: 746: 742: 738: 734: 733: 732: 728: 724: 720: 717: 716: 689: 685: 681: 677: 676: 675: 672: 668: 667: 666: 662: 658: 654: 653: 652: 649: 646: 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 627: 626: 625: 622: 618: 617: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 595: 594: 591: 587: 586: 585: 581: 577: 573: 572:User:Nyxaros2 569: 565: 561: 557: 556: 555: 552: 546: 540: 536: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 513: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 495: 494: 490: 486: 482: 481: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 463: 462: 461: 457: 453: 450: 448: 444: 439: 437: 435: 421: 420: 419: 418: 417: 416: 411: 407: 403: 400: 398: 391: 387: 386: 381: 380: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 352: 350: 346: 342: 338: 333: 329: 325: 322: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 300: 297: 293: 289: 285: 280: 277: 273: 269: 265: 260: 259: 258: 257: 253: 249: 248: 236: 232: 229: 226: 222: 218: 214: 211: 208: 205: 202: 199: 196: 193: 190: 186: 183: 182:Find sources: 178: 175: 169: 165: 161: 157: 152: 148: 143: 139: 135: 131: 130:Stephen Hogan 127: 126: 122: 119: 116: 112: 109: 107: 104: 102: 99: 98: 97: 95: 90: 83: 82:Stephen Hogan 80: 78: 77: 73: 69: 68:Jo-Jo Eumerus 64: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3356: 3354: 3334: 3316: 3306: 3296: 3286: 3277: 3260: 3243: 3196:— Preceding 3188:Sardar Udham 3183: 3179: 3178: 3161: 3156: 3093: 3068: 3051: 3024: 2853: 2849: 2768: 2683: 2682: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2659: 2637: 2632: 2617: 2609: 2588: 2567: 2548: 2531: 2464: 2397: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2355: 2354: 2345:but some are 2344: 2335: 2317: 2304:Softlavender 2295: 2287: 2280: 2276: 2268: 2231: 2208: 2168: 2146: 2136: 2135: 2121: 2102: 2099: 2070:CiphriusKane 1965:CiphriusKane 1935:CiphriusKane 1908: 1892: 1882: 1871: 1861: 1853:the original 1846: 1836: 1828: 1796:Sardar Udham 1773:Adolf Hitler 1750:Howard Beale 1739: 1660: 1656: 1601: 1501:CiphriusKane 1458: 1454: 1442: 1415:WP:NFSOURCES 1406: 1381: 1364: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1320: 1312: 1310: 1287: 1267:Softlavender 1203:Softlavender 1179: 1174:, fine, OK, 1120:Softlavender 1093: 1089: 1070:Softlavender 1063: 1040:— Preceding 1012:— Preceding 991: 975:CiphriusKane 948: 944: 940: 936: 930: 926:Red Election 924: 914: 909:. He played 902: 892: 886: 882:Sardar Udham 880: 862:CiphriusKane 844: 843: 824: 810: 795: 785: 783: 718: 446: 442: 440: 433: 429: 397:Sardar Udham 393: 383: 353: 323: 245: 242: 230: 224: 216: 209: 203: 197: 191: 181: 87: 66:discussion. 62: 50:no consensus 49: 47: 31: 28: 3335:Weak delete 3288:Mad as Hell 3278:Weak delete 3231:Herostratus 3166:Herostratus 3106:Herostratus 3102:WP:BLUDGEON 3026:Herostratus 3002:Herostratus 2774:Herostratus 2509:Herostratus 2367:independent 2322:Herostratus 2213:Herostratus 2209:Richard III 1746:Peter Finch 1741:Mad as Hell 1729:WP:GNGACTOR 1703:Herostratus 1614:Herostratus 1606:WP:BLUDGEON 1583:Herostratus 1557:Bliss Media 1538:Herostratus 1463:Herostratus 1389:Herostratus 1363:article in 1338:Dublin Live 1217:Herostratus 1184:Herostratus 1176:WP:BLUDGEON 1116:WP:BLUDGEON 1102:Herostratus 1046:Herostratus 1018:Herostratus 953:Herostratus 845:Weak delete 829:Hyperwave11 430:WP:NACTOR: 207:free images 3248:Djm-mobile 3217:Djm-mobile 2895:User:Yamla 2248:And that, 2018:WP:CANVASS 1829:References 1767:wrote for 1765:Joe Leydon 1759:2) In the 1459:notability 937:The Tudors 811:Sandstein 645:guidelines 539:respectful 308:Lightburst 288:Lightburst 268:Lightburst 3361:talk page 3282:WP:NACTOR 3265:Bigdelboy 3184:weak keep 3130:SmokeyJoe 3077:SmokeyJoe 2850:vandalism 2633:weak keep 2614:WP:SIGCOV 2490:Supermann 2443:Supermann 2379:JoelleJay 2300:WP:NACTOR 2281:The Times 2273:WP:NACTOR 2151:NemesisAT 2065:Supermann 2052:Supermann 2025:~Cheers, 2023:survival. 1980:Supermann 1950:Supermann 1811:Supermann 1807:WP:NACTOR 1610:Supermann 1565:Supermann 1516:Supermann 1484:Supermann 1384:like this 1378:WP:NACTOR 1365:The Times 1252:Supermann 967:Supermann 949:High Road 941:Injustice 765:Supermann 737:Supermann 680:Supermann 657:Supermann 631:Supermann 607:Supermann 599:pentalogy 576:Supermann 503:Supermann 499:lead role 471:Supermann 445:Has made 402:Supermann 366:Supermann 358:WP:NACTOR 341:Supermann 58:WP:NACTOR 37:talk page 3363:or in a 3340:Adamant1 3210:contribs 3198:unsigned 3180:Draftify 2887:User:DGG 2722:this dif 2621:itsJamie 2589:Comment: 2398:Comment: 2250:SnowFire 2236:SnowFire 2169:in depth 1733:WP:THREE 1624:WP:THREE 1054:contribs 1042:unsigned 1026:contribs 1014:unsigned 901:that is 788:Relisted 434:multiple 390:Iraq war 360:as well 174:View log 115:glossary 39:or in a 3318:bonadea 3301:at the 3291:at the 3261:Comment 3123:WP:PSTS 3056:GoodDay 2841:WP:DENY 2801:BusterD 2792:WP:DENY 2765:WP:DENY 2739:WP:DENY 2696:BusterD 2597:BusterD 2568:Comment 2480:Parasol 2407:BusterD 2375:because 2192:WP:100W 2038:Parasol 1909:Comment 1873:Variety 1775:as an ' 1769:Variety 1602:Comment 1559:or the 1534:Thanks 1431:Parasol 1298:, with: 1292:WP:DENY 1160:SHOUTED 1008:WP:DENY 919:at the 903:usually 601:of the 515:Please 213:WP refs 201:scholar 147:protect 142:history 92:New to 63:clearly 3305:, and 3244:Delete 3098:WP:ANI 3069:Delete 3052:Delete 3030:WP:AGF 2893:after 2678:Jayron 2655:WP:GNG 2610:Delete 2536:JeffUK 2465:AT ALL 2350:Jayron 2334:It is 2269:Delete 2254:Drmies 2131:Jayron 2126:WP:GNG 1725:WP:GNG 1645:think. 1617:at at 1612:& 1346:Mirror 1342:Mirror 1296:WP:GNG 1180:virtue 945:Chosen 751:Drmies 723:Drmies 719:Delete 523:page. 521:WP:COI 392:drama 354:Delete 185:Google 151:delete 54:WP:GNG 2644:talk 2422:Mlb96 2347:. -- 2302:. -- 2128:. -- 1686:OTHER 1677:LINKS 1674:SHOUT 1657:don't 1321:think 1305:1) A 891:. In 671:deity 648:deity 621:deity 590:deity 551:deity 252:talk 228:JSTOR 189:books 168:views 160:watch 156:links 16:< 3344:talk 3326:talk 3269:talk 3252:talk 3235:talk 3221:talk 3206:talk 3170:talk 3157:does 3134:talk 3110:talk 3081:talk 3060:talk 3042:talk 3006:talk 2805:talk 2778:talk 2726:this 2724:and 2700:talk 2669:that 2660:also 2619:OhNo 2601:talk 2576:talk 2557:talk 2549:Keep 2540:talk 2532:Keep 2513:talk 2494:talk 2447:talk 2426:talk 2411:talk 2383:talk 2326:talk 2308:talk 2258:talk 2240:talk 2232:Keep 2217:talk 2188:WP:N 2178:talk 2155:talk 2147:Keep 2122:Keep 2113:talk 2074:talk 2056:talk 1984:talk 1969:talk 1954:talk 1939:talk 1917:talk 1896:.com 1815:talk 1787:'s " 1707:talk 1683:EACH 1632:talk 1587:talk 1569:talk 1547:and 1520:talk 1505:talk 1488:talk 1467:talk 1447:Here 1393:talk 1334:This 1288:Keep 1271:talk 1256:talk 1221:talk 1207:talk 1188:talk 1172:CAPS 1124:talk 1106:talk 1098:here 1074:talk 1050:talk 1022:talk 979:talk 971:here 957:talk 947:and 943:and 939:and 907:here 866:talk 833:talk 825:Keep 769:talk 755:talk 741:talk 727:talk 684:talk 661:talk 635:talk 611:talk 580:talk 570:and 566:and 529:talk 507:talk 489:talk 475:talk 456:talk 406:talk 374:talk 345:talk 324:Keep 312:talk 292:talk 272:talk 221:FENS 195:news 164:logs 138:talk 134:edit 72:talk 56:and 3311:at 3182:or 3094:did 2848:as 2769:not 2665:why 2639:DGG 2475:Ton 2470:Ten 2336:far 2279:in 2033:Ton 2028:Ten 1894:IGN 1781:IGN 1752:at 1426:Ton 1421:Ten 1407:not 1350:him 1332:2) 1169:ALL 1090:was 541:to 438:or 247:DGG 235:TWL 172:– ( 3346:) 3295:, 3271:) 3254:) 3237:) 3223:) 3212:) 3208:• 3172:) 3136:) 3112:) 3083:) 3062:) 3044:) 3036:. 3008:) 2807:) 2780:) 2728:: 2702:) 2684:32 2646:) 2603:) 2578:) 2559:) 2542:) 2515:) 2496:) 2449:) 2428:) 2413:) 2385:) 2356:32 2328:) 2310:) 2260:) 2242:) 2219:) 2180:) 2157:) 2137:32 2115:) 2076:) 2058:) 2020:: 1986:) 1971:) 1956:) 1941:) 1919:) 1891:. 1870:. 1845:. 1817:) 1709:) 1680:AT 1634:) 1589:) 1571:) 1522:) 1507:) 1490:) 1469:) 1395:) 1273:) 1258:) 1223:) 1209:) 1190:) 1166:IN 1163:AT 1126:) 1108:) 1100:. 1076:) 1056:) 1052:• 1028:) 1024:• 981:) 959:) 868:) 835:) 771:) 757:) 743:) 729:) 686:) 663:) 637:) 613:) 582:) 531:) 509:) 491:) 477:) 458:) 408:) 376:) 364:. 347:) 314:) 306:. 294:) 286:. 274:) 266:. 254:) 215:) 166:| 162:| 158:| 154:| 149:| 145:| 140:| 136:| 74:) 3342:( 3267:( 3250:( 3233:( 3219:( 3204:( 3168:( 3132:( 3108:( 3079:( 3058:( 3040:( 3004:( 2856:. 2803:( 2776:( 2698:( 2642:( 2599:( 2574:( 2555:( 2538:( 2511:( 2492:( 2445:( 2424:( 2409:( 2381:( 2324:( 2306:( 2256:( 2238:( 2215:( 2176:( 2153:( 2111:( 2072:( 2054:( 1982:( 1967:( 1952:( 1937:( 1915:( 1898:. 1876:. 1813:( 1748:/ 1705:( 1630:( 1585:( 1567:( 1540:: 1536:@ 1518:( 1503:( 1486:( 1465:( 1391:( 1269:( 1254:( 1219:( 1205:( 1186:( 1122:( 1104:( 1072:( 1048:( 1020:( 977:( 955:( 864:( 831:( 802:. 767:( 753:( 739:( 725:( 682:( 659:( 633:( 609:( 578:( 547:: 543:@ 527:( 505:( 487:( 473:( 454:( 443:2 404:( 372:( 343:( 310:( 290:( 270:( 250:( 239:) 231:· 225:· 217:· 210:· 204:· 198:· 192:· 187:( 179:( 176:) 170:) 132:( 117:) 113:( 70:(

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

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Stephen Hogan - Knowledge

Index