1263:
words and sells at
Chapters Canada for $ 17 not $ 3.(it took 30 seconds to research this and realize Lamona was wrong. But some Knowledge user who does not put his/her name on this page calls it a "children's book"??? To my eye it appears to be 80 pages simply because it's in Coffee Table size/format, making it thinner. By the looks of it, had it been traditional format it would have been roughly 150 pages. Shoddy work by some on this page. I'm finding more errors on this on-going feedback section than on the actual Knowledge page which appears to be accurate. I don't think making up facts helps in this case. Please be truthful and please be better with your research. I know nothing about the award.
730:. By checking other years, we can see that the "Gemini Award for Best Live Sporting Event" was always given to producers. However, producers may have accepted it on behalf of the team. And it's entirely possible that this is an accepted practice within the industry, so that it's legitimate for Hollingsworth to claim to have won it. To check that, all we would have to do is find non-producers from other years who claim to have won the Gemini Award for Best Live Sporting Event. I haven't done it, but nobody has shown the opposite either, so as of now I am going with Tchaliburton's theory that Hollingsworth has a legitimate claim to have won this award. –
753:
disagree with the idea that "awarding bodies usually don't post detailed records of past winners"; the better-established and better-organized ones do.) I have found the database to be working on and off today, so if it doesn't work now, try again a little later. I don't know why we would want to search for other non-winners who claim to have won the same award; I realize that Margin referred to "non-producers", but the inclusion criteria for the award could have varied from year to year and non-producers could have received the award in other years. But the question is whether
1094:
publication. Not "independent." Plus, not knowing how extensive the review is, it could amount to no more than a notice of publication. (Note, a one-paragraph review, like those in
Publisher's Weekly, to me is more of a description than a review. A literary review is much more than that. I know that others feel differently.) "Resource links" is a journal for Canadian literature for young people. That's all I can glean from that because it doesn't allow a search and gives virtually no free information on its web site. A substantial review in that journal might satisfy
943:. This page says "There is no public access to SalesData but we do have public resources and handle media requests." I will trying sending them a media request -- We are Knowledge and need to know if this book was a bestseller. Since this discussion seems to have come down to two questions: 1) Did he write a bestseller? and 2) Did he get the Gemini award? I'm interested in this as a test case for verifying sources, as much for Hollingsworth himself. Anyway, in the meantime, I found
1356:
be assumed to be a book for adults, although (and this is the case with the Harry Potter books) adults may read and enjoy them. The price for the second edition is right there on the publisher's page that I linked. I agree that there is no mention of any bestseller status on the publisher's page. I pointed that out before. But maybe this publisher doesn't put those on its page -- I'm not trying to prove a negative, just passing alone what I actually see.
1173:
it not only does not exist to promote sales, it has been known to give bad reviews to books, to theater, to art shows, thus possibly harming sales. Publisher's Weekly never says: "don't bother to buy this book." I may not have fully understood the role of some of those journals because they didn't give a lot of information about themselves, but I do think I understand the nature of "trade publication."
922:. Neither of these books is available via Amazon, and I tried to find Canadian best-seller lists but came up zero. It could be that they aren't archived online. However, the publisher doesn't include any "best seller" talk around the book, and the 2nd edition is selling for CA3.99. Unless this Gemini award (which we cannot confirm) turns out to be something really big, I'm not seeing notability here.
1213:), that is why we have the guideline for reviews and there is nothing in the guideline about trade reviews nor has there ever been any consensus to not use trade reviews, there has been discussion about it in the past (so I've been told). Generally if all a book has is trade reviews then it's a weaker case then a mix of trade and other types. This has more than trade reviews. --
1619:
Canadian athlete and likely didn't sell in USA. Wrong. It's on shelves in Pitt at Barnes and Noble and sold for a while at NHL rink. Someone called it a children's book. Wrong. And I don't care what some web site categorized it. I went the store and checked myself. I have little confidence that the one sentence is actually wrong based on "some" of the feedback on this page.
1417:
Bearcat wrote: "PR bios claim a lot of things that aren't actually an accurate reflection of the facts (e.g. a "bestselling" book that was only a bestseller in one bookstore in the author's own hometown". Please verify. Where did
Bearcat get this information about the bookstore. Let's be transparent.
1373:
No, my point is there is no mention of "best seller" on his
Knowledge page. Why is best seller topic being discussed if it's not mentioned. From what I can tell, the book sold quite well and likely is on a top list somewhere. But on the Knowledge page it's not an issue. There is no "best seller" line
1355:
I gave you the actual links so you could look at them. The
Worldcat record lists the elementary school grades the book is appropriate for, and, in my experience (and I have much experience with library data), grades are only listed for children's books. Plus anything appropriate for grades 3-6 cannot
509:
is a cite for the 2003 Gemini Award for Best Live
Sporting Event, 2003 World Junior Hockey Championship, as stated in the Bio. This page cites the names of the producers, but TSN apparently regards it as having been awarded to the entire team. I'm not familiar enough with the broadcasting industry to
1262:
Given this ongoing chat is designed to provide "fact checking aspects", this is sloppy on many accounts. Earlier comment by
Bearcat suggests his "reportage" barely appears on TV. He's on all of the time. Almost daily. SC Story of a Champion is NOT a children's book as stated by LaMona. It's 30,000+
1172:
The difference between independent and not has to do with the industry and audience that is served. A publishing trade journal exists to promote sales. That's its role. It serves the companies and people who are publishing and selling. The New York Times has a different audience and different role -
838:
I can't help but think that we may be going about this all wrong if we're treating the official database of the awards-giving body as a primary source which we're not supposed to use as it would be considered original research, while relying on newspaper articles that contradict that database but in
752:
and can select "Person", then click "Continue". (You may need a couple of attempts to get the radio button for "Person" to activate, but it can be done.) On the next screen you can run a search for "Hollingsworth" as the name to find, then click "Continue". You will find no results for him. (Also, I
1012:
Amazon we are referring to. I'll try to remember that. In the end, it shouldn't be a surprise that a book about a CA hockey player sells in CA but not the US. Unfortunately, it isn't easy from one country to see what another country sees on Amazon - same with Google. It changes radically from place
796:
About the
Academy database, thanks, I missed that. But what that establishes is that the award went to the producers, which we knew already. The question is, is Hollingsworth's employer justified in saying that he won the award? I've proposed a test to check whether such claims are common. But even
1007:
Thanks. So they are available on CA Amazon, but US Amazon lists them as "out of stock." (And, BTW, US Amazon will list any book that is offered to it, regardless of availability. Many titles are "not currently available", both from Amazon and third-party sellers.) So I guess we now need to specify
1330:
Calling it a children's book is something that was fabricated. It's simply not true -- it was made up and clearly you don't enjoy being called out for it. But beyond that, there is no mention of any "best seller" status on this page. Nor does it appear in the references. $ 17.95 and it's still on
1209:
I have seen poor reviews in trade reviews, I have seen them say in effect don't bother with the book. Trades are used for all sorts of purpose such as libraries choosing collections who rely on them for guidance. The point is for AfD most books never get reviewed at all ("many books are published
1093:
specifies: "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The
Canadian Review of Materials lists itself as an "all-volunteer online publication." I would mark that as non-RS. "Quill & Quire"'s about says: "Quill & Quire is the magazine of the Canadian book trade." So it is a trade
1151:
LaMona, these sources are commonly used on
Knowledge and are considered reliable. They are independently published reviews with no connection to the author. They are not 'sales publications' (unless you believe every review is marketing unless it's in the New York Times). "Substantial review" is
1119:
is independent and widely recognized as the leading authority on Canadian books. I'm not sure why you think it isn't independent. As for the Canadian Review of Materials, it's also a highly respected publication. It's written by volunteers but they are volunteers who are teachers, professors and
1191:
is "A book review is a form of literary criticism in which a book is analyzed based on content, style, and merit." It is the "critical analysis" part that is key here. If the review is a mere recounting of the story, then it's a synopsis, not a review. There has to be some judgment in a review,
1618:
The inaccuracy rate on this discussion is higher than any proven inaccuracy on the article. There was suggestion his reportage rarely appears on TV. That was a sloppy guess and wrong. He wrote a book on one of the most famous athletes in North America, and someone (above) suggested it was on a
1499:
claim in order to beef up the appearance of being more notable than they really are, not an allegation against Hollingsworth. So there's nothing to retract, because my statement as written was entirely true — people really do that. And anyway, our rule on Knowledge is that it's not the
1665:. Previously the database didn't even work, so maybe there's a problem with it. I don't know. But in any case, the database is a primary source and we shouldn't be doing original research. We should be looking for a secondary source that confirms or refutes that he won the award.
1311:. You might disagree with this assessment, but that's what I saw, and both are reliable sources. I do not think that "shoddy work" is an appropriate way to approach the discussion. And I truly resent anyone saying that I am not being truthful. Please act in good faith.
1553:, article content does not determine notability. If you think he's notable then the article should be kept regardless of the current state of the article. If you don't agree with the content then that can be discussed, but you can't use your vote as a bargaining chip.
1584:
I guess I shouldn't have made that offer. But I don't see how we can justify having an article that is five sentences long where one of the five sentences is known to be false. That seems like a very high inaccuracy rate. (The inaccurate sentence is
1601:
Short articles are acceptable. As for the "false" statement, not everyone agrees with you that it's false. But if the consensus develops that it is false, it will be removed. However he meets other notability criteria which people have explained.
569:
You're getting primary sources and independent sources mixed up. A primary source would be a court transcript, public document or diary. The CTV site is actually a secondary source. But it's not independent, which is a whole other issue.
588:
kind of primary source, absolutely — but anything at all written by the topic of the article, or by other people with a direct affiliation (e.g. his own employer, his wife, etc.), is still a primary source no matter what format it's in.
546:
for information about him, and nobody but nobody ever but ever qualifies for a Knowledge article on the basis of self-published or employer-published sources alone. As Margin1522 points out, there's a potential dichotomy between who the
842:
doesn't say what category Hollingsworth won in, for what program, or who shared the award with him). But I can't find a policy that clearly indicates that we should rely on the ACCT database, even though personally I believe we should.
166:
641:
people does not make him a Gemini award winner, nor does the fact that his employer claims he won -- the ACCT is the awards-giving body, and they should be the ones to say who the winners of their own awards are.
855:
Checking the awarding organization's database of who it gave its awards to, in a case where we need verification of whether the subject is actually a winner of the award, is not original research — it's just
951:. I would add it to the article, but unfortunately the article is currently under attack by an SPA and an IP who keep blanking the content. I don't have rollback rights. Could someone fix that? –
1152:
incorrect, that's an arbitrary value judgement. The word "substantial" does not appear in AUTHOR. We regularly accept Publisher's Weekly and those types of reviews as evidence of notability. --
910:
965:
I think you can go ahead and add whatever you need to add to the article. Several users have been reverting the blanking attacks on the page, and the article has been semi-protected as well. --
1469:
doesn't say an author is notable just because their book has been reviewed. It says that a person is likely to be notable if the person "has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a
394:
PR bios claim a lot of things that aren't actually an accurate reflection of the facts (e.g. a "bestselling" book that was only a bestseller in one bookstore in the author's own hometown and
718:
We have no record from the ACCT of who won any of the Gemini awards. Those awards have been discontinued and replaced by the Canadian Screen Awards. Their page on past winners of that is
989:
440:
The Bio claimed national, so what we need is someone with an account at the Globe and Mail who can check the bestseller list for November 2010. If the archives go back that far. –
119:
201:
of a television journalist. Neither of the substantive claims of notability here, news anchor for a local television station and regional reporter for TSN, gets a person over
346:
160:
1566:, I do not see how removing that sentence makes the subject any more notable. So I agree with your statement about the !vote, but we still have very little here that is
306:
246:
797:
if they are common, that might not be good enough if we are going insist that his name has to be on the award. Anyway I haven't got time to do it today. Maybe later. –
1047:
Please note the notability guidelines make no provision for best seller status. It has been discussed but there is no consensus for it (many good reasons). However,
326:
286:
266:
634:
1206:
We have long accepted trade reviews in AfD. Trade reviews do two things: they describe and evaluate the book. This is the definition of a book review.
548:
510:
say whether this is a common practice, but it doesn't seem unreasonable. You often see the entire crew getting up on stage to accept these awards. –
1533:. I would be willing to withdraw my "delete" recommendation if the claim that Hollingsworth won a Gemini award were removed from the article. --
126:
1309:
722:. As you can see, it's very sketchy. This is typical – awarding bodies usually don't post detailed records of past winners. What we do have is
92:
87:
213:
sport to cover, thus leaving him mostly covering him things like QMJHL or practice squad hockey and opening up a very real question about how
1626:
1473:
work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (Emphasis added.) --
96:
864:
not explicitly supported by the source — but checking the ACCT database for verification of a disputed fact is not "interpreting" anything.
1270:
79:
1060:
658:
Is the search feature working? I'm not getting any results for anything I try. I wanted to check who won for best sportscast in 2003.
555:
to credit for it — but it's the ACCT's determination, not TSN's, that decides whether he's a winner of the award or just a hanger-on.
788:
I tried, but the only site I found was a database for publishers that requires a paid account. In principle it should be verifiable.
1425:
1381:
1338:
1286:
1192:
something analytic. Just because a journal or magazine or web site calls their writings "book reviews" doesn't mean that they are.
181:
944:
373:. The bio reports that two of his books have been national bestsellers in Canada, one of them a #1 bestseller for 3 months. As
148:
17:
1279:
Where does it list this book as a best seller? It's not mentioned on the wiki article. Nor do any of the references list it?
919:
816:. It just occurred to me that if we're looking up information in primary source databases we may be getting into a case of
52:, defaulted to keep. Things went too complicated in the discussion, let us just fix the fact that there is no consensus.--
637:
does not list him as a Gemini award winner. The fact that he worked on a sports program that won a Gemini award for two
470:#1, "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times."
1052:
817:
142:
883:
677:
604:
1688:
40:
1669:
1652:
1634:
1606:
1596:
1579:
1557:
1540:
1521:
1480:
1455:
1433:
1407:
1389:
1365:
1346:
1320:
1294:
1244:
1228:
1201:
1182:
1167:
1144:
1124:
1107:
1078:
1033:
1022:
996:
972:
960:
931:
899:
873:
850:
833:
806:
783:
764:
739:
694:
667:
649:
611:
598:
579:
564:
537:
519:
501:
479:
435:
389:
358:
338:
318:
298:
278:
258:
238:
61:
1649:
1630:
1593:
1537:
1477:
1221:
1160:
1137:
1071:
969:
847:
761:
646:
543:
138:
1331:
sale here in Pittsburgh even four years after it was published. Just stick to the facts and you'll be fine.
1063:. There are probably more if anyone has access to Canadian research databases (newspapers, magazines etc). --
1662:
1274:
840:
821:
525:
83:
1056:
915:. Hollingsworth's earlier book (also 80 pages, for the same publisher) "Brad Richards, a hockey story" has
719:
829:
779:
663:
575:
533:
524:
I doubt very much that a reliable news network like CTV is going to lie about its employees. In any case,
475:
188:
1684:
1504:
of getting over a notability rule that gets the person over the notability rule, but the quality of the
1429:
1418:
Please post on this page or retract comment. We've already established he was wrong about "reportage".
1385:
1342:
1290:
36:
1622:
1421:
1377:
1334:
1282:
1266:
956:
802:
735:
542:
It doesn't matter a whit whether CTV would or wouldn't lie about it — as his own employer, they're a
515:
463:
445:
385:
374:
202:
1646:
1590:
1563:
1534:
1474:
1214:
1153:
1130:
1064:
966:
844:
791:
758:
706:
643:
174:
57:
1589:-- the problem is, a much more reliable source on the same subject contradicts the statement.) --
422:
which explicitly shows his book appearing on a national book sales chart that would get him over
75:
67:
154:
1666:
1603:
1554:
1517:
1404:
1241:
1121:
1030:
993:
916:
869:
825:
775:
713:
659:
608:
594:
571:
560:
529:
497:
471:
431:
354:
334:
314:
294:
234:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1683:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1442:
If you know that he authored any 'bestselling' books, then it is incumbent on you to provide
1240:? If it's not an authoritative source of Canadian book reviews then there is no such source.
1089:
I believe that reviews need to be substantial, and in neutral (e.g. non sales) publications.
912:. There are now two editions out, the second presumably having been revised by the co-author
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1575:
1567:
1466:
1451:
1443:
1361:
1316:
1237:
1197:
1178:
1116:
1103:
1095:
1090:
1051:
does say an author is notable if their works have been reviewed. And there are reviews. See
1048:
1018:
927:
690:
467:
423:
415:
403:
370:
947:, which is a 50-minute video of Hollingsworth talking about his TV career and reading from
723:
506:
406:, a "hit single" that got played twice on one radio station in the band's own hometown and
1642:
952:
798:
749:
731:
511:
441:
381:
1211:
1207:
274:
254:
53:
939:– Canada bestseller data is available at Booknet Canada, a for-pay database service,
209:— and for added bonus, the region he covers for TSN has no major league franchises in
1306:
913:
603:
You're saying that non-independent sources are always primary. That's incorrect. See
198:
426:
for that claim, not a self-penned marketing bio on the website of his own employer.
1513:
1505:
865:
590:
584:
I'm not getting anything confused. A court transcript, public document or diary is
556:
493:
489:
459:
427:
419:
350:
330:
310:
290:
230:
206:
113:
1571:
1550:
1509:
1447:
1357:
1312:
1233:
1193:
1188:
1174:
1099:
1014:
985:
923:
857:
686:
892:
886:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
748:
and under "About the Academy", select "Awards Database". You will then be at
680:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
270:
250:
1641:
So are you saying that you think he really did win a Gemini Award, and the
940:
824:
says "Hollingsworth, a Dartmouth resident, won a Gemini Award in 2003".
466:#4, "has won significant critical attention". It also qualifies him per
492:, not to his own marketing bio on the website of his own employer.
488:
The claim that he won a Gemini Award has to actually be cited to a
1403:
What does the price or reading level have to do with notability?
1677:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1305:
Look on the publisher's page at the second edition for $ 3.99CA
411:
1053:
Canadian Review of Materials;2/25/2011, Vol. 17 Issue 24, p15
745:
1495:
of the kinds of things that BLPs about all kinds of people
1129:
And it has an editorial board. It's not self published. --
1562:
Unsourced information should be removed. In contrast with
1029:
I don't understand how this relates to notability anyway.
757:
won the award, not whether any other non-producers did. --
380:
per Tchaliburton, he passes for winning a Gemini award. –
774:. Has anyone checked the bestseller lists for his books?
414:-certified national pop charts that it takes to satisfy
750:
http://www.academy.ca/About-the-Academy/Awards-Database
109:
105:
101:
1210:
each year, only a small fraction of them are reviewed"
173:
1645:
somehow forgot to list him as one of the winners? --
551:
considers to be the winner of the award and who TSN
1013:to place. That makes our task here more difficult.
891:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
685:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
347:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1691:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1308:. And see here where the grade level is listed
1120:librarians with expertise in children's books.
1057:Quill & Quire;Jul2010, Vol. 76 Issue 6, p27
744:Here is how to find the awards database: Go to
307:list of News media-related deletion discussions
247:list of Television-related deletion discussions
187:
8:
1661:I'm saying that a reliable secondary source
1061:Resource Links;Feb2007, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p49
345:Note: This debate has been included in the
327:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
325:Note: This debate has been included in the
305:Note: This debate has been included in the
285:Note: This debate has been included in the
265:Note: This debate has been included in the
245:Note: This debate has been included in the
635:Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television
402:book sales charts that it takes to satisfy
287:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
267:list of People-related deletion discussions
1620:
1419:
1375:
1332:
1280:
1264:
462:winner. That should confer notability per
369:If having bestselling books is enough for
344:
324:
304:
284:
264:
244:
1643:Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television
860:. Original research is the extraction of
549:Academy of Canadian Cinema and Television
909:The book is an 80-page children's book
229:if the referencing can't be beefed up.
1446:It doesn't matter what Bearcat said.
7:
1570:and that would support notability.
24:
1187:Also note that the definition of
990:his books are available on Amazon
1277:) 22:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1098:, but it does say "multiple".
822:this reliable secondary source
458:. His bio states that he is a
1:
1580:16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1558:05:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1541:05:30, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1522:19:58, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1481:05:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1456:16:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1434:01:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1408:04:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1390:20:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1366:03:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1347:03:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1321:02:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1295:00:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
1245:22:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1229:19:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1202:19:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1183:19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1168:18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1145:18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1125:18:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1108:17:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1079:15:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
1023:17:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
997:07:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
973:05:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
961:06:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
932:03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
900:08:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
874:01:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
851:05:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
834:21:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
807:20:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
784:18:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
765:18:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
740:08:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
695:08:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
668:06:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
650:05:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
612:03:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
599:03:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
580:17:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
565:11:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
538:01:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
520:01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
502:21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
480:18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
436:21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
390:23:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
359:14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
339:14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
319:14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
299:14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
279:09:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
259:09:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
239:07:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
1670:07:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
1653:06:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
1635:02:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
1607:01:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
1597:01:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
1512:the accuracy of the claim.
1034:05:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
62:10:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
1708:
746:http://www.academy.ca/Home
605:Knowledge:Party and person
1471:significant or well-known
528:he won a Gemini in 2003.
1680:Please do not modify it.
1508:that can be provided to
1236:, are you familiar with
607:for some clarification.
410:appeared on any of the
32:Please do not modify it.
726:from a 3rd party site,
526:according to Metro News
225:. So this needs to be
197:Completely unsourced
1663:says he won a Gemini
818:WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH
728:awardsandwinners.com
418:, etc.) — so it's a
1491:That was a general
820:. But in any case,
839:a vague way (i.e.
205:in the absence of
76:Paul Hollingsworth
68:Paul Hollingsworth
1637:
1625:comment added by
1506:reliable sourcing
1436:
1424:comment added by
1392:
1380:comment added by
1349:
1337:comment added by
1297:
1285:comment added by
1278:
1269:comment added by
1238:Quill & Quire
1117:Quill & Quire
902:
898:
697:
361:
341:
321:
301:
281:
261:
207:reliable sourcing
1699:
1682:
1226:
1219:
1165:
1158:
1142:
1135:
1076:
1069:
897:
895:
890:
888:
795:
717:
710:
684:
682:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
1707:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1689:deletion review
1678:
1627:184.151.127.189
1222:
1215:
1161:
1154:
1138:
1131:
1072:
1065:
903:
893:
881:
862:interpretations
789:
711:
704:
698:
675:
490:reliable source
420:reliable source
277:
257:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1705:
1703:
1694:
1693:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1667:T.C.Haliburton
1656:
1655:
1647:Metropolitan90
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1604:T.C.Haliburton
1591:Metropolitan90
1564:Metropolitan90
1560:
1555:T.C.Haliburton
1544:
1543:
1535:Metropolitan90
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1475:Metropolitan90
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1405:T.C.Haliburton
1395:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1242:T.C.Haliburton
1231:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1122:T.C.Haliburton
1111:
1110:
1082:
1081:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1031:T.C.Haliburton
1026:
1025:
1000:
999:
994:T.C.Haliburton
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
967:Metropolitan90
889:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
853:
845:Metropolitan90
811:
810:
809:
792:Metropolitan90
769:
768:
767:
759:Metropolitan90
707:Metropolitan90
683:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
653:
652:
644:Metropolitan90
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
609:T.C.Haliburton
544:primary source
522:
483:
482:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
398:on any of the
363:
362:
342:
322:
302:
282:
273:
262:
253:
217:his reportage
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1704:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1681:
1675:
1671:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1654:
1651:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1624:
1608:
1605:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1595:
1592:
1588:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1542:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:verification.
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1435:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1276:
1272:
1271:63.138.96.115
1268:
1246:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1220:
1218:
1212:
1208:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1159:
1157:
1150:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1136:
1134:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1070:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1035:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
998:
995:
991:
987:
983:
980:
974:
971:
968:
964:
963:
962:
958:
954:
950:
949:Sidney Crosby
946:
942:
938:
935:
934:
933:
929:
925:
921:
918:
914:
911:
908:
905:
904:
901:
896:
887:
885:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
854:
852:
849:
846:
841:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
812:
808:
804:
800:
793:
787:
786:
785:
781:
777:
773:
770:
766:
763:
760:
756:
755:Hollingsworth
751:
747:
743:
742:
741:
737:
733:
729:
725:
721:
715:
708:
703:
700:
699:
696:
692:
688:
681:
679:
669:
665:
661:
657:
656:
655:
654:
651:
648:
645:
640:
636:
632:
629:
628:
613:
610:
606:
602:
601:
600:
596:
592:
587:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
545:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
521:
517:
513:
508:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
484:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
464:WP:JOURNALIST
461:
457:
454:
447:
443:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
376:
375:WP:JOURNALIST
372:
368:
365:
364:
360:
356:
352:
348:
343:
340:
336:
332:
328:
323:
320:
316:
312:
308:
303:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
280:
276:
272:
268:
263:
260:
256:
252:
248:
243:
242:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:WP:JOURNALIST
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1679:
1676:
1621:— Preceding
1617:
1586:
1530:
1501:
1496:
1492:
1470:
1420:— Preceding
1416:
1394:
1376:— Preceding
1374:to delete.
1372:
1333:— Preceding
1329:
1281:— Preceding
1265:— Preceding
1261:
1223:
1216:
1162:
1155:
1139:
1132:
1073:
1066:
1044:
1009:
981:
948:
936:
906:
882:
861:
858:verification
826:Tchaliburton
813:
776:Tchaliburton
771:
754:
727:
714:Tchaliburton
701:
676:
660:Tchaliburton
638:
630:
585:
572:Tchaliburton
552:
530:Tchaliburton
472:Tchaliburton
460:Gemini award
455:
407:
399:
395:
377:
366:
226:
223:SportsCentre
222:
218:
214:
210:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
50:No consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1426:63.138.96.2
1382:63.138.96.2
1339:63.138.96.2
1287:63.138.96.2
1189:book review
161:free images
1568:verifiable
953:Margin1522
920:1551096331
799:Margin1522
732:Margin1522
512:Margin1522
442:Margin1522
382:Margin1522
221:gets onto
1685:talk page
1497:regularly
1467:WP:AUTHOR
1096:WP:AUTHOR
1091:WP:AUTHOR
1049:WP:AUTHOR
724:this list
468:WP:ANYBIO
424:WP:AUTHOR
416:WP:NMUSIC
404:WP:AUTHOR
371:WP:AUTHOR
351:• Gene93k
331:• Gene93k
311:• Gene93k
291:• Gene93k
54:Ymblanter
37:talk page
1687:or in a
1623:unsigned
1422:unsigned
1378:unsigned
1335:unsigned
1283:unsigned
1267:unsigned
884:Relisted
678:Relisted
400:national
378:he fails
219:actually
120:View log
39:or in a
1587:sourced
1531:Comment
1514:Bearcat
1493:example
982:Comment
937:Comment
866:Bearcat
814:Comment
772:Comment
702:Comment
591:Bearcat
557:Bearcat
494:Bearcat
428:Bearcat
231:Bearcat
227:deleted
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1650:(talk)
1594:(talk)
1572:LaMona
1538:(talk)
1510:verify
1478:(talk)
1448:LaMona
1358:LaMona
1313:LaMona
1234:LaMona
1194:LaMona
1175:LaMona
1100:LaMona
1015:LaMona
986:LaMona
970:(talk)
924:LaMona
907:Delete
848:(talk)
762:(talk)
687:Michig
647:(talk)
633:. The
631:Delete
199:WP:BLP
139:Google
97:delete
1502:claim
1217:Green
1156:Green
1133:Green
1067:Green
1010:which
894:slakr
639:other
553:wants
408:never
275:ping!
255:ping!
215:often
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1631:talk
1576:talk
1551:WP:N
1549:Per
1518:talk
1452:talk
1430:talk
1386:talk
1362:talk
1343:talk
1317:talk
1291:talk
1275:talk
1198:talk
1179:talk
1104:talk
1059:and
1055:and
1045:Keep
1019:talk
957:talk
945:this
941:here
928:talk
917:ISBN
870:talk
830:talk
803:talk
780:talk
736:talk
720:here
691:talk
664:talk
595:talk
576:talk
561:talk
534:talk
516:talk
507:Here
498:talk
476:talk
456:Keep
446:talk
432:talk
412:IFPI
386:talk
367:Keep
355:talk
335:talk
315:talk
295:talk
271:S.G.
251:S.G.
235:talk
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
396:not
211:any
189:TWL
118:– (
1633:)
1578:)
1520:)
1454:)
1432:)
1388:)
1364:)
1345:)
1319:)
1293:)
1200:)
1181:)
1106:)
1021:)
992:.
988:,
984::
959:)
930:)
872:)
843:--
832:)
805:)
782:)
738:)
693:)
666:)
642:--
597:)
578:)
563:)
536:)
518:)
500:)
478:)
434:)
388:)
357:)
349:.
337:)
329:.
317:)
309:.
297:)
289:.
269:.
249:.
237:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1629:(
1574:(
1516:(
1450:(
1428:(
1384:(
1360:(
1341:(
1315:(
1289:(
1273:(
1224:C
1196:(
1177:(
1163:C
1140:C
1102:(
1074:C
1017:(
955:(
926:(
868:(
828:(
801:(
794::
790:@
778:(
734:(
716::
712:@
709::
705:@
689:(
662:(
593:(
586:a
574:(
559:(
532:(
514:(
496:(
474:(
448:)
444:(
430:(
384:(
353:(
333:(
313:(
293:(
233:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.