471:
notability for a player from twenty years ago, as it would be more plausible that the sources would not be online. This guy is contemporary, in the internet age, where pretty much all news/coverage that would satisfy the GNG is posted online in some form or another (even regional newspaper coverage). As for foreign language; Google search works just as well in German as it does in
English, so the foreign language argument doesn't hold much water with me (this might be different if he was Chinese or something). The sources just are not there, and there is no reason to
2063:. A secondary source is a source that's based on other primary sources. A Sky Sports reporter who interviews people and reads documents and writes an article about Sky Sports's history that's published on Sky Sports... that's a secondary source. It's not independent, it's ABOUTSELF, but it's secondary. A match report is a primary source when it's reporting on what happened during the match, but it can be a secondary source when it's providing analysis, future predictions, or history of recent games, etc. See
2020:
Sky Sports publishes its address on its website, then it's a primary source. It all depends on what you're looking at. And when you're looking at an awards show host announcing who won an award, that's a primary source. It doesn't matter if that video is hosted at
Skysports.com or at YouTube, it's a primary source–it doesn't get more primary than a video of an award being announced. That's the equivalent of sourcing an article about a football match to a video of that match. Of course that's primary!
1209:. NFOOTY does not create notability, it is merely a general rule of thumb to indicate at what sporting level athletes will often meet the GNG. However, they still have to meet the GNG to be considered notable. This seems to be a concept that keep !voters saying "passes WP:NFOOTY" do not understand (despite the fact that I explained it in the nomination and several times in this AfD). If keep !voters are going to ignore how our notability guidelines work and !vote 'keep' anyway, they I would
1633:
1623:
1613:
1593:
1583:
1573:
1563:
1553:
599:
wrong. This might be because the subject simply didn't do much of note in their career, when others of the same level generally do. Or because the
Wikiproject that decides what levels of FOOTY are presumed notable has been too generous. I'm not sure which of these is the case, but from my searches, available sources do not seem to suggest notability under Knowledge's guidelines for this subject. —
2208:
unter
Vertrag genommen" which Google translates to "Philipp Offenthaler (18) from the Lower Austrian Landesligisten SC Union Ardagger is taken under contract". That's primary, not secondary. It's a contemporary newspaper story. You haven't explained how that source meets the 7-part criteria–you haven't analyzed any source in this entire discussion. You're just posting links and making assertions.
2163:
supporting notability. You waste everyone's time by suggesting that sources that obviously don't meet the criteria, are actually sources that meet the criteria. Statistics websites, routine transfer reports, brief mentions that are only a few sentences long, primary sources, team websites, self-published sources, and so many more, do not satisfy the criteria. Here, again, you put forward
1315:, When creating articles, authors should provide sources showing that the subject is notable. If they don't, they should at least verify that such sources exist. If they can't, perhaps they shouldn't be so hasty in creating an article on a player who has just started their career and may or may not end up getting significant coverage in reliable sources? Doing otherwise is contrary to
1987:, either (to take one German example). As for the video of the awards ceremony... I'm incredulous at the suggestion that a two-minute video of the subject receiving an award at an awards ceremony meets SIGCOV, even if it's hosted by Sky Sports. I mean, that's not secondary, it's not in-depth, it's not independent, it's not reliable, it fails on every single criteria of SIGCOV.
1603:
2223:... an event may happen on Monday afternoon, may be written about in Tuesday morning's newspapers, and may be added to Knowledge just minutes later. Many editors—especially those with no training in historiography—call these newspaper articles "secondary sources". Most reliable sources in academia, however, name typical contemporary newspaper stories as primary sources.
2266:
transfer is going to affect the team's chances, or how this transfer fits into a team's overall strategy for the season, that would be secondary. But article reporting that "John Smith was signed today" is a primary source. I do agree that editors who don't understand the difference between primary and secondary sources shouldn't be participating in AfD discussions.
1264:, I've explained this several times before on this page. Please look up the definition of 'presumed'. NFOOTY does not say that players that pass it's arbitrary thresholds ARE notable, it says that they are "presumed notable". Presumed means "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability". They still have to pass the GNG; NFOOTY just tells us what is
1298:
every week. GNG doesn't trump common sense - the amount of extra work for the project from your interpretation of how to deal with this, could be immense, and it is entirely unnecessary based on a poor intepretation of non-existent rules. It's easy enough to improve the article - if you'd actually done what you claimed to have done in the beginning.
1361:, and GNG. V requires that the information in the article is verifiable - and it surely is. RS requires that reliable sources be used, and surely they have been. Your issue seems to be that you want longer, more detailed articles, to meet GNG (though I think we are pretty close to that already). But that doesn't mean there are any
274:. they don't even approach that is necessary to satisfy the GNG (one line mentions only). The only other sources online are a multitude of stats pages on aggregation sites, which also don't represent significant coverage. If anyone can actually find sources that demonstrate notability, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. —
1846:
through
Austrian media and newspapers I could find even more. I would argue the Sky source definitely satisfies GNG, and while I'm not sure on the reliability of the first source, if it is reliable, it too satisfies GNG. It has "Fan" in the name but not everything with "Fan" in the name is a blog - see
2287:
that talks about contemptuous media reports, which by their very nature are one step removed from the event, and are secondary (assuming they aren't verbatim regurgitation of press releases - which don't appear to be the case here). I can't even fathom where you are getting this from! Perhaps you can
2132:
that could be used to meet GNG that was apparently not considered. But undoubtedly
Levivich will find some flaw with that too. Despite the fact that by my count we are now well over a dozen sources, not to mention easily clearing the NFOOTY bar (not marginal at all unlike some at AfD) somehow none of
2019:
No, "Sky Sports" isn't secondary. Of course not, that's a nonsensical statement. A publisher can't be a "secondary" or a "primary" source. It depends on the document you're analyzing. When Sky Sports publishes a sports analysis article on its website, then yes, of course it's a secondary source. When
1481:
and look again, particularly at the statistics websites and the reports of contemporaneous events, like matches and transfers and such. Nowhere did I say there are words in the article that I consider BLP or OR violations–I guess you should re-read my comments above, too, if that's what you took away
726:
has done, we can't find any secondary source that can be used to support the article (aside from brief mentions in game reports, which don't support notability). Your comment implies that you do believe such sources exist. Have you found any that you can point me in the direction of? As I said above,
598:
notability, it is just an indication of who generally meets the general notability guideline (without having to go through the complicated business of searching and evaluating sources). However, if you actually do a thorough search and find nothing, then you know that the presumption turned out to be
2167:
that has two sentences reporting on the player's contract signing. It's trivial (two sentences), and it's primary (a contemporaneous report of an event: the contract signing), and it obviously isn't a SPORTBASIC/BASIC/GNG source. That's not nitpicking, that's not wikilawyering, that's just applying
1171:
I haven't insinuated you were lying. I insinuated that you had significantly exaggerated that you tried to improve the article. I see no edits that attempted to improve the article. When the article was 38 minutes old, you tagged it for issues. One minute later you fixed a typo. And then you waited
1140:
the article to merely include more statistics info sourced to stats pages. Expansion is not necessarily improvement, especially if that expansion is merely more meaningless statistics. So no, I'm not going to expand it with more statistical info, especially when the result would still be an article
937:
is full of either unsourced info or is just "he moved from X division to Y division on Z date" because that's all that can be verified via stats pages. No sources are available (that I have seen) that would enable me to meaningfully expand the article with encyclopedic content, that's why I brought
821:
1274 minutes is less than one season's worth of football, isn't it? In a second-tier league? I'm not at all surprised that there is no in-depth coverage of this player. Why would there be? Readers can look up his stats at
Soccerway or Worldfootball.net... what is the point of copying those stats to
593:
the NSPORTS SNG says that subjects are 'presumed' to be notable. In other words, we presume, without having to do a detailed search, that the subject meets the GNG based on the fact that subjects at that level generally do meet the GNG. Presume means "suppose that something is the case on the basis
2207:
Are you saying that when a newspaper publishes an article that says "John Smith signed a contract with the local football team", that's NOT a primary source? The
Heimatsport article you just put forward says "Philipp Offenthaler (18) vom niederösterreichischen Landesligisten SC Union Ardagger wird
1297:
Are you really suggesting that we must now start carefully examining hundreds of players a year (a month?) who achieve full professional status, and are at the beginning of their career? There's no lack of sources to confirm what this player does, from reliable sources, and they are playing almost
1242:
It's not just a rule of thumb, it's a guideline. A guideline to create a black line, so that we don't have people wasting our time with endless debates about which point younger players are notable. If cases where there's one fully professional cap of a few minutes, and no coverage, then that's an
2162:
don't say "any source". SPORTBASIC specifies (1) multiple, (2) published, (3) non-trivial, (4) secondary, (5) reliable, (6) intellectually independent, and (7) independent of the subject. So yeah, if you put forward a dozen sources that do not meet those criteria, then they don't count as sources
2084:
No confusion about aboutself ... but I agree, for something like that award video, that would be primary - but a typical soccer broadcast and most of Sky Sports content, is a secondary source, as it's full of analysis and history. I'm not sure how it's not a reliable source though - we've got two
2265:
Yes, it's primary, it's a contemporaneous report of an event. There is no analysis of other primary sources involved, which is the hallmark of what makes a secondary source, a secondary source. The report of the fact that the transfer occurred is primary. If someone writes an analysis of how the
1974:
Nein, I don't think it is a "standard" legal disclaimer, at least not for publications. Another example is that it refers to itself as a "channel" and "platform" but not as a creator of content: "LAOLA1 versteht sich als Info-Channel für sport-relevante
Informationen, sowie als Plattform für den
1016:
Sorry, but I'm not seeing where you mentioned any sources above? You only mentioned German
Knowledge, which we can't use as a source, and their article is sourced to statistics websites (like transfermarkt) and a fan blog (fansports.com), which also can't be used to improve the article. So, what
470:
available. The whole point of the GNG is because we need sources with significant coverage to be able to say any more than "this guy exists". If there aren't any, he doesn't pass the GNG and we can't expand the article. Also, I would argue that your position would make a lot more sense presuming
1845:
discussing the player in great detail. The second discusses the same award as one of the sources, but Sky Sports is a much more significant source than some local website and goes into more detail too I think, though admittedly I'm relying on the translation. I'd imagine if I had hours to look
2347:
Please AGF - I didn't read that far, and only read the diff, which doesn't have the highlighting or colours (or colors!). Okay ... looking at that other NEWSPRIMARY essay ... that's in complete conflict with Knowledge policy, and states clearly at the top that it's not policy. It's completely
2193:. By your logic everything is a primary source since it reports on something that happened. That's absurd. I have explained why I believe these sources support GNG. So have other editors. You either can't be bothered to read, don't care, or are deliberately misinterpreting what we are saying.
1145:
about this guy at all aside from some numbers about what games he has played and what teams he has played for? Due to the plethora of stats paged fueled by fantasy football leagues, those sorts of statistics can be looked up for virtually any amateur player as well (from levels well below the
1934:
is a two-minute clip of an awards ceremony. First they announce who the winner is, then he comes up from the audience to receive the award, and the hosts ask him some questions. You can't seriously be suggesting that this is SIGCOV, or even a reliable source?As for FanSports, I don't see any
1458:
I don't see any primary sources in either the English-language or German-language versions. There's certainly nothing in the article that's not confirmed by secondary sources. I don't see how this is an issue. What words in the article do you consider original research or a BLP violation?
1816:". As this AFD is a much larger pass of NFOOTBALL (over 17 appearances for a 22-year old who is starting regularly, versus 3 appearances about 70 years ago) and has by far better references and sourcing, then, there should be no doubt that the delete votes here should have no weight!
1243:
exception that's worth talking. But a young player, who made their first fully professional cap only 16 months ago, and has since had 17 caps, with sources that support this, is well past where the black line has been set. By pushing a more discerning standard here, rather than at
1034:
Not only can those sources be used to improve the article (there's other stats sites that confirm the transfermarkt information), there's more prose there as well. Nothing precludes article improvement. Claiming that one tried to improve the article, when one didn't, is not right.
2168:
the guideline to the source. Source #6 on my list above is one that arguably meets the criteria. But we need "multiple", per the guidelines, and I'm not seeing a second. I find your refusal to actually apply the SPORTBASIC or GNG criteria to the sources you put forward to be
871:, I tried to improve the article. That is generally my first action with these Stats-only player pages; find a couple sources and then add them. The issue here is that no sources can be found that can be used to meet the GNG. (And NO, NFOOTY does not let us ignore the GNG or
1414:
There's no original research here - and you know it. And I don't see any BLP violations either. I don't know if you are just throwing stuff out there, without thinking about it, or if you really don't understand these policies - but either way, you can't argue it this way.
850:. While there is some consensus that one or two appearances may be the exception to the presumption of notability, there hasn't been consensus to toss existing notability standards out the window in this manner. Nominators should improve the article, not ignore consensus.
667:– Per the source analysis below, it looks like there is one marginally-GNG source, and the player is still playing in a fully-professional league, and I think in such situations draftification makes sense in case a second GNG source may be written in the next six months.
1939:, the owners of the website disclaim any responsibility for the content. That some of their authors are labeled "editor" or "administrator" suggests to me it's like a forum. Appears to be user-generated or SPS, but I don't see anything on there suggesting it's an RS.
2250:
If you are still falsely claiming after all these years, that a newspaper report about a transfer, is a primary source, you should be topic-banned from AFD, and all your past votes should be stricken! The lack of competency shown here is stunning!
2004:
Sky Sports isn't secondary? That's absurd. Just about everything you've said in this AfD is absurd. It's clear where consensus is going so I'm just going to leave this be and hope we see a reasonable close and not a supervote from a certain admin.
1850:- and maybe "Fan" means something else in German than it does in English, I really don't know. I'd also argue that several of the local sources satisfy GNG, including the one about the award. And I'm not even sure how local that website is.
1875:
do you see significant coverage of Offenthaler? All I see is a video clip of the award ceremony where he was presented with the amateur award. Is there a different Sky Sports page you meant to link to, or am I missing something on the page?
1128:, but it is fine so long as better sources exist that can be used to expand the article later on. When I said that I always try to improve these articles, what I mean is that my first action is always to search for additional sources, and
1911:
And clicking on a handful of random articles on FanReport, they have at least two other authors, one of whom is listed as a "Redaktuer" (editor, according to Google Translate) so I don't think it's an SPS. Maybe an Austrian equivalent of
912:
Improve the article then - the German version is far more extensive. The whole point of notability guidelines, is we shouldn't having to be wasting our time with such nominations, when there's been little attempt to improve the article.
799:. The rest of them at the moment I see only brief mentions of him in his match reports but isn't that what most pages on Knowledge are like with football players. There is also the fact that he has played for 1274 minutes in an eligible
1661:
indicated in the nomination, where they said that there was "one line mentions only". I also note you ignore other sources that are easy to find and discussed in this AFD, such as those that appear in the German-language version -
1124:, With regards to insinuations that I am lying about trying to improve the article; let me be clear. Many sportspeople pages are created with only links to stats pages and little to no other info. This is generally in violation of
2164:
2129:
2348:
out-of-sync with the discussions we've been having at AFD for years. Please stick to policy - to try and introduce an essay about academic sourcing, that conflicts with our notability guidelines is blatant wikilawyering!
212:
1716:. And the two sources in Hawk's !vote are #3 and #9 on my list above. I think I have now literally linked to every single source in the article, on this AfD page, and in the German article. Did I miss any?
255:
of notability. The article was added with only links to stats pages at Soccarway and WorldFootball.net (not significant coverage), without any attempt to demonstrate the that the subject meets the
1176:. I don't see that this is trying to improvie the article. Please don't claim you've made edits, that you haven't made. Perhaps you could apologize for this, by now trying to improve the article!
2111:
source, because the video is not a secondary source. Other than arguably #6 on my list above, I'm not seeing that there's any other sources so far in this discussion that meet SPORTBASIC, etc.
572:- It is common, check the archive for examples, to keep footballers with ongoing careers when NFOOTY is satisfied; especially ongoing NFOOTY, subject played again just a few hours ago (per
1053:
are you talking about??? Are you saying we should cite our article to the German Knowledge article? Or to Transfermarket? Or Fansports.com? Or if not those, then to what are we citing?
1132:
add a couple of them to the article (perhaps with some additional info about the subject that would be useful/interesting to the reader). I tried that with this article, but found
1576:
792:
515:, have you found any sources to support notability? As I said in the nomination, I'm happy to withdraw if anyone can find anything that can demonstrate that he meets the GNG. —
165:
2441:
until years later. That's insane and if you truly believe that, I'm with Nfitz. You should be topic-banned from AfD since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
2318:, the explanatory supplement to the NOR policy. USEPRIMARY goes into detail about things that PRIMARY doesn't, like contemporaneous media reports–that's specifically what the
1897:
him winning the award. It includes a clip of him receiving it, but that doesn't appear to be the entirety of it. Someone who speaks German will have to say for sure, though.
333:
206:
1977:
LAOLA1 sees itself as an information channel for sport-relevant information, as well as a platform for the exchange of information between sport-interested Internet users.
1693:
2085:
secondary sources already confirming this, and here's a primary source, which there's no prohibition about using, given we've got secondary sources confirming this.
251:, however, after searching for any sources I could add to the article, I'm not seeing any sources that can demonstrate notability in this case and am contesting the
302:
2322:
section of USEPRIMARY addresses. I've linked to USEPRIMARY like half a dozen times now, and I just quoted NEWSPRIMARY in a quote box. How is it possible that you
353:
1777:
1753:! If there are dozens of borderline sources on a very young player who is getting a lot of fully-professional starts, then we are very far past the black line!
2392:
I'm sorry I assumed good faith, and that you were sticking to policy, rather than essays other documents that state they aren't policy! The amount of TLDR and
1606:
1070:
What I said was pretty clear. I think your time would be better trying to improve the article, rather than forever arguing with people who disagree with you.
1596:
399:, is a young player with an ongoing career. This is not the same as a player with one appearance twenty years ago. The presumption that GNG is met applies.
112:
97:
1586:
2067:. A video of an awards show is a primary source; there's no editorial there at all. It's like a photograph. In fact, it's 60 photographs per second.
138:
133:
172:
451:
No, it is a presumption of current notability. Not being able to find a glut of online sources in a foreign language is not the sole indicator.
1636:
1198:
796:
142:
883:, but honestly, it is 100% against policy to say that something that can't be demonstrated to meet the GNG is notable because of NFOOTY, and
1626:
125:
2375:
in the "Further information" hatnote. But if you want to believe that it doesn't have broad consensus, you're welcome to that opinion.
1931:
1872:
1842:
1737:
to me - and I note that every time I see you get into this going through the sources in detail supporting a delete, it ends up a keep
1244:
1713:
1136:
sources of sufficient quality to add anything meaningful to the article. What you are talking about (if I am reading correctly) is
272:
227:
1608:
About 275 words in the same local paper about the player, a routine transfer ("new-guy-on-the-team") report, but arguably SIGCOV.
2024:
is, frankly, exactly how I feel about your comments here as well. I'll agree with you to disagree with you and leave this here.
1814:
clearly states an article is notable if it passes the GNG or one of the subject specific guidelines. It has never had to do both
426:
argument and you know it. GNG is not met, I’ve searched, so there is no longer any such presumption. Have you found anything? —
194:
1146:
threshold for notability). Links to stats pages without any significant coverage about the person do not support notability. —
92:
85:
17:
1272:
pass the GNG. I admit that the sports notability guidelines are confusing but the word 'presumed' was chosen intentionally. —
373:
1616:
1864:
1838:
1697:
1960:. And Sky Sports is one of the best-known sports media sources in the world, I'm shocked you don't consider it an RS.
1658:
1350:
1327:
1276:
1221:
1150:
942:
891:
731:
603:
519:
479:
430:
309:
278:
106:
102:
188:
1742:
1709:
1705:
573:
269:
266:
2212:
your assertions, such as that the Haimatsport article is primary, are just flat wrong. For the love of Jimbo, read
1957:
758:
2550:
2533:
2466:
2450:
2430:
2409:
2398:
This page is not one of Knowledge's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.
2387:
2342:
2297:
2278:
2260:
2245:
2202:
2184:
2146:
2123:
2094:
2079:
2050:
2036:
2014:
1999:
1969:
1951:
1925:
1906:
1888:
1859:
1825:
1792:
1762:
1750:
1738:
1728:
1675:
1650:
1494:
1468:
1453:
1424:
1409:
1378:
1343:
1307:
1292:
1256:
1237:
1185:
1166:
1110:
1096:
1079:
1065:
1044:
1029:
1011:
989:
972:
958:
922:
907:
859:
834:
816:
781:
747:
702:
679:
659:
619:
585:
564:
535:
507:
495:
458:
446:
406:
384:
365:
345:
325:
294:
67:
2569:
475:
that offline sources exist that are not available online for a contemporary sports figure of the internet age. —
40:
791:- I am looking through the sources and I see a brief mention of him winning Austrian Amateur player of the year
184:
2099:
Sure there's no prohibition on using it, but it doesn't contribute to notability. The Sky Sports link is not a
1984:
1214:
884:
640:
129:
1734:
1247:, you just serve to create confusion, and potentially waste the time that this black line is meant to save.
1746:
234:
1141:
which fails Knowledge's notability guidelines that I would still be obligated to bring to AfD. Do we know
560:
504:
455:
403:
1689:
963:
Don't say you tried to improve the article then - when there's easy ways to do so, and you didn't do it.
2565:
2546:
2446:
2327:
2319:
2311:
2227:
2217:
2198:
2169:
2142:
2041:
Unless the article is about "Sky Sports" or a Sky media program, then Sky Sports is a secondary source.
2010:
1965:
1921:
1902:
1855:
769:
The keep votes aren't really addressing the question of GNG sufficiently to close as keep at the moment.
718:
claim that notability depends on whether the sources are in the article. You are 100% correct; question
698:
627:– fails GNG; I'm only finding brief mentions in game reports. The article has no secondary sources (see
36:
466:, Then why did you point out "ongoing career". I'm not talking about requiring a 'glut'; there aren't
2529:
2462:
2315:
2213:
2151:
2100:
2064:
1811:
1478:
1430:
938:
it to AfD. Once again, I am happy to withdraw if 2 or more sources of decent quality can be found. —
812:
777:
628:
581:
2521:
2415:
2060:
2056:
1701:
396:
361:
341:
220:
121:
73:
2418:
while accusing me of wikilawyering for viewing a contemporaneous news report as a primary source.
1685:
1681:
2437:
Again, by your insane troll logic, all news reports are primary and nothing can possibly satisfy
2425:
2393:
2382:
2337:
2273:
2240:
2179:
2118:
2074:
2031:
1994:
1946:
1916:(which has had mixed opinions on whether it and its associated sites satisfy GNG), I'm not sure.
1883:
1787:
1723:
1645:
1489:
1448:
1404:
1125:
1091:
1060:
1024:
984:
829:
674:
654:
636:
200:
1556:
879:
notable, not *is* notable); NFOOTY does not determine what is notable and what isn't. I hate to
1663:
2368:
2303:
2284:
2190:
1474:
556:
512:
501:
463:
452:
423:
415:
400:
377:
81:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2564:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2542:
2457:
Can you three just move this chat somewhere else as you are going completely off-topic now.
2442:
2194:
2138:
2006:
1961:
1917:
1898:
1851:
1806:
1194:
847:
711:
694:
690:
248:
62:
2525:
2458:
2405:
2353:
2293:
2256:
2155:
2104:
2090:
2046:
1821:
1758:
1671:
1598:
Local paper, 6-sentence routine report that he won an "amateur player of the season" award
1566:
1464:
1438:
1420:
1374:
1303:
1252:
1181:
1106:
1075:
1040:
1007:
968:
918:
880:
855:
808:
773:
577:
693:. The question isn't are there sources in the article, the question is do sources exist.
643:
shouldn't trump the global consensus of core policies like V and NOT, and in any event,
1893:
I don't speak German and Google Translate doesn't work on videos, but it appears to be
1434:
1193:, I have explained what I meant. In any case, even if a subject meets the criteria for
1173:
999:
875:). NFOOTY is only a rule of thumb for what generally meets the GNG (that's why it says
357:
337:
2302:
Are you trolling? I quoted it above. In a frickin' colored box. With an ALLCAPS link.
1956:
That's a standard legal disclaimer that you see on just about every website, even the
243:
I am fully aware that someone who plays in the 'Austrian second division football' is
2438:
2421:
2378:
2333:
2307:
2269:
2236:
2175:
2159:
2114:
2108:
2070:
2027:
1990:
1942:
1879:
1868:
1802:
1783:
1719:
1641:
1485:
1444:
1400:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1334:
1283:
1228:
1157:
1087:
1056:
1020:
995:
980:
949:
898:
825:
800:
795:
and the fact that he only 15km outside of his current club that he plays for in this
738:
723:
670:
650:
644:
610:
526:
486:
437:
316:
285:
256:
887:
can't override policy either, so just voting in numbers is not a solution either. —
1366:
1358:
1320:
1632:
1622:
1612:
1592:
1582:
1572:
1562:
1552:
159:
2172:. You need to at least make a good faith argument that those boxes are checked.
1362:
1354:
1316:
1172:
12 minutes before sending it to AFD, despite knowing the subject easily meeting
872:
632:
53:
500:
Please, continue to be aggressive, that will certainly help me change my mind.
2401:
2367:. It's part of USEPRIMARY, which is an explanatory supplement. If you look at
2349:
2289:
2252:
2086:
2042:
1871:, as suggested by the author being the administrator of the website. Where on
1817:
1754:
1667:
1602:
1460:
1416:
1370:
1312:
1299:
1261:
1248:
1190:
1177:
1121:
1102:
1071:
1036:
1003:
964:
927:
914:
868:
851:
727:
I'm happy to withdraw the nomination if a couple good sources can be found. —
1913:
1847:
2396:
you've accomplished here is astounding. NEWSPRIMARY states at the top that
2363:
you write a comment. For example, if you read NEWSPRIMARY, you'll see it's
1979:). I don't see anything like that in WaPo's TOS that you linked to, or in
1975:
Informationsaustausch zwischen sportlich interessierten Internet-Usern" (
722:"do sources exist". But based on the searches that I have done and that
262:
I can't find any sources that have significant coverage of him at all.
1217:
or simple majority of !voters cannot override policy and guidelines. —
2133:
them are OK. At this point I'm not convinced he'd be satisfied with
1473:
If you don't see primary sources in the article, you need to reread
1805:. A review of that DRV makes it clear that, especially as noted by
1936:
1935:
information about editorial control or oversight on that website.
2558:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1980:
994:
The ones I mentioned above. They would improve the article, and
931:
265:
The only mentions of him in the news that I can find are these:
639:. I've never been a fan of the "young and playing" rule – that
631:), and we need secondary sources to base an article off of per
594:
of probability". It's important to note that the SNG does not
418:, Are you trying to imply that NFOOTY gives a presumption of
2359:
AGF that you commented before reading? LOL! Consider reading
761:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1084:
I'd love to improve this article. What sources shall I use?
259:(A practice all too common with low-level sportspeople).
1197:, if sources cannot be found for the subject to meet the
2022:
Just about everything you've said in this AfD is absurd
1545:
155:
151:
147:
1049:
You keep saying "the sources", "those sources", etc.,
219:
2326:
where I are getting this from? I'm getting this from
1628:
Same local paper, 8-sentence routine transfer report
1429:
A BLP that is based on primary sources violates the
772:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
376:'s list of association football-related deletions.
334:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2572:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1638:One-sentence mention that he signed a contract.
352:Note: This discussion has been included in the
332:Note: This discussion has been included in the
301:Note: This discussion has been included in the
2371:(part of the NOR policy), you'll see that it
2221:
1618:Same local paper, 6-sentence routine coverage
1002:, any source would help improve the article.
303:list of Football-related deletion discussions
233:
8:
1837:In only a few minutes of Googling, I found
635:. Right now, we just have stats, and we are
354:list of Austria-related deletion discussions
113:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1930:You don't need to speak German to see that
372:Note: This discussion has been included in
1017:sources do we use to improve the article?
689:As others have explained, a clear pass of
351:
331:
300:
2055:No, that's not correct, you're confusing
1680:OK, let's go through the five sources in
2283:No it's not primary. There's nothing in
2323:
2288:quote whatever policy you are seeing?
2021:
1976:
803:league which would swing me over to a
1702:FanReport.com extremely brief mention
1213:discount such !votes in the close; a
7:
1704:. And the three sources in the nom:
1657:That's a lot more substantial than
1101:Never mind, others have done this.
555:I think notability is established.
1776:– Closers may want to be aware of
1245:Knowledge talk:Notability (sports)
24:
1631:
1621:
1611:
1601:
1591:
1581:
1571:
1561:
1551:
1482:from them. I'm done here, Fitz.
98:Introduction to deletion process
1199:WP:General notability guideline
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
977:Improve it with what sources?
1:
1205:of notability made by NFOOTY
1030:21:11, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
1012:18:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
990:04:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
973:03:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
959:01:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
923:19:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
908:19:21, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
860:18:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
835:06:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
817:03:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
782:23:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
748:20:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
703:19:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
660:05:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
620:10:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
586:00:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
565:15:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
536:17:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
508:09:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
496:22:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
459:20:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
447:19:50, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
407:11:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
385:00:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
366:18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
346:18:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
326:17:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
295:17:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
2551:13:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
2534:21:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2467:01:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
2451:19:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2431:20:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2410:20:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2388:19:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2343:19:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2298:19:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2279:19:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2261:19:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2246:18:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2203:18:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2185:18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2147:17:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2124:06:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2095:06:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2080:04:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2051:03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2037:03:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2015:02:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
2000:01:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1970:00:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1952:20:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1926:19:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1907:19:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1889:19:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1860:19:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1826:01:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
1801:That's a good point made by
1793:18:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1778:this potentially related DRV
1763:20:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1729:20:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1676:20:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1651:18:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1495:18:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1469:06:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1454:04:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1425:03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1410:00:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1379:03:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1344:00:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
1308:14:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1293:11:06, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1257:03:44, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1238:00:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1186:19:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
1167:19:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
1111:00:17, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
1097:19:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
1080:19:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
1066:00:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
1045:00:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
680:18:28, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
257:general notability guideline
68:04:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
2233:But really, I'm done here.
1714:listed in a list of players
1659:User:Insertcleverphrasehere
930:, The "far more extensive"
822:Knowledge? I don't get it.
88:(AfD)? Read these primers!
2589:
2400:. Stop the wikilawyering.
1353:I think you are confusing
1268:to pass the GNG. This guy
2220:part, particularly this:
2561:Please do not modify it.
2165:this Heimatsport article
1774:Note to closer about DRV
1433:part of WP:BLP, and the
32:Please do not modify it.
1211:suggest that the closer
2232:
1664:de:Philipp Offenthaler
1351:Insertcleverphrasehere
1328:Insertcleverphrasehere
1277:Insertcleverphrasehere
1222:Insertcleverphrasehere
1151:Insertcleverphrasehere
943:Insertcleverphrasehere
892:Insertcleverphrasehere
732:Insertcleverphrasehere
604:Insertcleverphrasehere
520:Insertcleverphrasehere
480:Insertcleverphrasehere
431:Insertcleverphrasehere
422:notability? That is a
310:Insertcleverphrasehere
279:Insertcleverphrasehere
998:has been met, and as
86:Articles for deletion
1932:the Sky Sports video
1733:Seems like a lot of
1578:one-sentence mention
645:consensus can change
374:WikiProject Football
2414:Now you're arguing
2373:links to USEPRIMARY
2216:, particularly the
2189:I suggest you read
1873:this SkySports page
1700:(discussed below),
122:Philipp Offenthaler
74:Philipp Offenthaler
1682:the German version
767:Relisting comment:
2324:can't even fathom
1441:parts of WP:NOR.
1340:
1339:
1338:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1215:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
1163:
1162:
1161:
1130:at the very least
955:
954:
953:
904:
903:
902:
885:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
881:beat a dead horse
784:
744:
743:
742:
616:
615:
614:
532:
531:
530:
492:
491:
490:
443:
442:
441:
387:
368:
348:
328:
322:
321:
320:
291:
290:
289:
103:Guide to deletion
93:How to contribute
2580:
2563:
2429:
2428:
2386:
2385:
2341:
2340:
2277:
2276:
2244:
2243:
2230:
2183:
2182:
2122:
2121:
2078:
2077:
2035:
2034:
1998:
1997:
1950:
1949:
1887:
1886:
1807:User:Dream Focus
1791:
1790:
1735:WP:Wikilawyering
1727:
1726:
1649:
1648:
1635:
1625:
1615:
1605:
1595:
1585:
1575:
1565:
1555:
1548:of the article:
1493:
1492:
1452:
1451:
1408:
1407:
1395:the first pillar
1331:
1330:
1326:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1154:
1153:
1149:
1095:
1094:
1064:
1063:
1028:
1027:
988:
987:
946:
945:
941:
895:
894:
890:
833:
832:
771:
764:
762:
735:
734:
730:
678:
677:
658:
657:
607:
606:
602:
523:
522:
518:
483:
482:
478:
434:
433:
429:
382:
371:
313:
312:
308:
282:
281:
277:
245:presumed notable
238:
237:
223:
175:
163:
145:
83:
60:
34:
2588:
2587:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2570:deletion review
2559:
2424:
2419:
2381:
2376:
2336:
2331:
2306:is part of the
2272:
2267:
2239:
2234:
2225:
2178:
2173:
2117:
2112:
2073:
2068:
2030:
2025:
1993:
1988:
1958:Washington Post
1945:
1940:
1882:
1877:
1867:seems to be an
1786:
1781:
1780:, filed today.
1722:
1717:
1644:
1639:
1544:– going off of
1542:Source analysis
1488:
1483:
1447:
1442:
1403:
1398:
1337:
1286:
1231:
1160:
1090:
1085:
1059:
1054:
1023:
1018:
983:
978:
952:
901:
828:
823:
785:
757:
755:
741:
673:
668:
653:
648:
641:local consensus
613:
529:
489:
440:
378:
319:
288:
180:
171:
136:
120:
117:
80:
77:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2586:
2584:
2575:
2574:
2554:
2553:
2541:meets NFOOTY.
2536:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2328:WP:NEWSPRIMARY
2320:WP:NEWSPRIMARY
2312:WP:NEWSPRIMARY
2228:WP:NEWSPRIMARY
2224:
2218:WP:NEWSPRIMARY
2130:another source
2126:
1909:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1796:
1795:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1654:
1653:
1629:
1619:
1609:
1599:
1589:
1588:team's website
1579:
1569:
1559:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1332:
1281:
1226:
1207:does not apply
1155:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
947:
896:
863:
862:
846:easily passes
840:
839:
838:
837:
770:
765:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
736:
706:
705:
684:
683:
682:
622:
608:
588:
567:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
524:
484:
435:
410:
409:
389:
388:
369:
349:
329:
314:
283:
241:
240:
177:
116:
115:
110:
100:
95:
78:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2585:
2573:
2571:
2567:
2562:
2556:
2555:
2552:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2537:
2535:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2519:
2516:
2468:
2464:
2460:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2427:
2423:
2417:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2384:
2380:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2357:
2355:
2351:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2339:
2335:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2317:
2316:WP:USEPRIMARY
2313:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2295:
2291:
2286:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2275:
2271:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2242:
2238:
2231:
2229:
2219:
2215:
2214:WP:USEPRIMARY
2211:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2181:
2177:
2171:
2166:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2152:WP:SPORTBASIC
2150:
2149:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2131:
2127:
2125:
2120:
2116:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2101:WP:SPORTBASIC
2098:
2097:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2076:
2072:
2066:
2065:WP:USEPRIMARY
2062:
2058:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2033:
2029:
2023:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1996:
1992:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1967:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1948:
1944:
1938:
1933:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1910:
1908:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1885:
1881:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1833:
1832:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1813:
1812:WP:NOTABILITY
1808:
1804:
1803:User:Levivich
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1794:
1789:
1785:
1779:
1775:
1772:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1725:
1721:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1698:FanReport.com
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1660:
1656:
1655:
1652:
1647:
1643:
1637:
1634:
1630:
1627:
1624:
1620:
1617:
1614:
1610:
1607:
1604:
1600:
1597:
1594:
1590:
1587:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1574:
1570:
1567:
1564:
1560:
1557:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1547:
1543:
1540:
1539:
1496:
1491:
1487:
1480:
1479:WP:USEPRIMARY
1476:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1450:
1446:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1431:WP:BLPPRIMARY
1428:
1427:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1406:
1402:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1336:
1329:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1285:
1278:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1236:
1235:
1230:
1223:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1152:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1123:
1120:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
992:
991:
986:
982:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
962:
961:
960:
957:
956:
951:
944:
936:
933:
929:
926:
925:
924:
920:
916:
911:
910:
909:
906:
905:
900:
893:
886:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
866:
865:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
841:
836:
831:
827:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
787:
786:
783:
779:
775:
768:
763:
760:
749:
746:
745:
740:
733:
725:
721:
717:
713:
710:
709:
708:
707:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
685:
681:
676:
672:
666:
663:
662:
661:
656:
652:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
629:WP:USEPRIMARY
626:
623:
621:
618:
617:
612:
605:
597:
592:
589:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
568:
566:
562:
558:
554:
551:
550:
537:
534:
533:
528:
521:
514:
511:
510:
509:
506:
503:
499:
498:
497:
494:
493:
488:
481:
474:
469:
465:
462:
461:
460:
457:
454:
450:
449:
448:
445:
444:
439:
432:
425:
421:
417:
414:
413:
412:
411:
408:
405:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
386:
383:
381:
375:
370:
367:
363:
359:
355:
350:
347:
343:
339:
335:
330:
327:
324:
323:
318:
311:
304:
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
292:
287:
280:
273:
270:
267:
263:
260:
258:
254:
250:
246:
236:
232:
229:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
208:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
186:
183:
182:Find sources:
178:
174:
170:
167:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
140:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
118:
114:
111:
108:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
90:
89:
87:
82:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
65:
61:
59:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2560:
2557:
2538:
2522:WP:NFOOTBALL
2517:
2416:WP:ONLYESSAY
2397:
2372:
2365:not an essay
2364:
2360:
2310:policy, and
2222:
2209:
2134:
2061:WP:SECONDARY
2057:WP:ABOUTSELF
1937:On this page
1894:
1834:
1810:
1773:
1546:this version
1541:
1325:
1324:
1274:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1219:
1218:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1148:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1051:what sources
1050:
940:
939:
934:
889:
888:
876:
843:
804:
788:
766:
756:
729:
728:
719:
715:
686:
664:
624:
601:
600:
595:
590:
569:
557:Celestina007
552:
517:
516:
513:GiantSnowman
477:
476:
472:
467:
464:GiantSnowman
428:
427:
419:
416:GiantSnowman
397:WP:NFOOTBALL
392:
380:CAPTAIN RAJU
379:
307:
306:
276:
275:
264:
261:
252:
244:
242:
230:
224:
216:
209:
203:
197:
191:
181:
168:
79:
63:
56:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
2543:Lepricavark
2443:Smartyllama
2394:WP:BLUDGEON
2314:is part of
2195:Smartyllama
2170:tendentious
2139:Smartyllama
2007:Smartyllama
1962:Smartyllama
1918:Smartyllama
1899:Smartyllama
1852:Smartyllama
1203:presumption
1201:, then the
1126:WP:NOTSTATS
712:Smartyllama
695:Smartyllama
665:Or draftify
637:WP:NOTSTATS
253:presumption
207:free images
2526:Lightburst
2459:HawkAussie
2369:WP:PRIMARY
2304:WP:PRIMARY
2285:WP:PRIMARY
2191:WP:PRIMARY
1568:stats only
1558:stats only
1475:WP:PRIMARY
1335:click me!)
1284:click me!)
1229:click me!)
1158:click me!)
950:click me!)
899:click me!)
809:HawkAussie
774:Fenix down
739:click me!)
714:, I would
611:click me!)
578:R96Skinner
527:click me!)
487:click me!)
438:click me!)
424:WP:CRYSTAL
317:click me!)
286:click me!)
2566:talk page
2137:source.
1914:SB Nation
1865:FanReport
1848:FanGraphs
1751:example 4
1747:example 3
1743:example 2
1739:example 1
1195:WP:NFOOTY
1138:expanding
848:WP:NFOOTY
807:for now.
797:reference
691:WP:NFOOTY
574:Soccerway
358:Shellwood
338:Shellwood
249:WP:NFOOTY
37:talk page
2568:or in a
2520:- meets
2156:WP:BASIC
2128:Here is
2105:WP:BASIC
1439:WP:SYNTH
1385:... and
1369:issues.
1270:does not
1143:anything
877:presumed
759:Relisted
724:Levivich
395:- meets
166:View log
107:glossary
39:or in a
1843:sources
1839:several
1835:Comment
1435:WP:PSTS
1174:WP:NATH
1000:WP:DINC
789:Comment
591:Comment
505:Snowman
473:presume
456:Snowman
404:Snowman
213:WP refs
201:scholar
139:protect
134:history
84:New to
2439:WP:GNG
2361:before
2308:WP:NOR
2160:WP:GNG
2109:WP:GNG
1869:WP:SPS
1391:WP:NOR
1387:WP:BLP
1266:likely
996:WP:ATH
932:German
801:WP:FPL
625:Delete
596:create
420:future
247:under
185:Google
143:delete
57:BD2412
2422:Leviv
2402:Nfitz
2379:Leviv
2350:Nfitz
2334:Leviv
2290:Nfitz
2270:Leviv
2253:Nfitz
2237:Leviv
2176:Leviv
2115:Leviv
2087:Nfitz
2071:Leviv
2059:with
2043:Nfitz
2028:Leviv
1991:Leviv
1943:Leviv
1895:about
1880:Leviv
1818:Nfitz
1784:Leviv
1755:Nfitz
1720:Leviv
1710:stats
1706:stats
1694:stats
1690:stats
1686:stats
1668:Nfitz
1642:Leviv
1486:Leviv
1461:Nfitz
1445:Leviv
1417:Nfitz
1401:Leviv
1371:Nfitz
1367:WP:RS
1359:WP:RS
1321:WP:RS
1313:Nfitz
1300:Nfitz
1262:Nfitz
1249:Nfitz
1191:Nfitz
1178:Nfitz
1122:Nfitz
1103:Nfitz
1088:Leviv
1072:Nfitz
1057:Leviv
1037:Nfitz
1021:Leviv
1004:Nfitz
981:Leviv
965:Nfitz
928:Nfitz
915:Nfitz
869:Nfitz
852:Nfitz
826:Leviv
716:never
671:Leviv
651:Leviv
502:Giant
453:Giant
401:Giant
228:JSTOR
189:books
173:Stats
160:views
152:watch
148:links
16:<
2547:talk
2539:Keep
2530:talk
2518:Keep
2463:talk
2447:talk
2406:talk
2354:talk
2294:talk
2257:talk
2199:talk
2143:talk
2091:talk
2047:talk
2011:talk
1981:Bild
1966:talk
1922:talk
1903:talk
1856:talk
1822:talk
1759:talk
1672:talk
1477:and
1465:talk
1437:and
1421:talk
1393:and
1389:and
1375:talk
1363:WP:V
1355:WP:V
1323:. —
1319:and
1317:WP:V
1304:talk
1253:talk
1182:talk
1134:zero
1107:talk
1076:talk
1041:talk
1008:talk
969:talk
935:stub
919:talk
873:WP:V
856:talk
844:Keep
813:talk
805:Keep
793:here
778:talk
699:talk
687:Keep
633:WP:V
582:talk
570:Keep
561:talk
553:Keep
393:Keep
362:talk
342:talk
305:. —
221:FENS
195:news
156:logs
130:talk
126:edit
50:keep
2426:ich
2383:ich
2338:ich
2274:ich
2241:ich
2210:And
2180:ich
2135:any
2119:ich
2075:ich
2032:ich
1995:ich
1985:TOS
1983:'s
1947:ich
1884:ich
1809:, "
1788:ich
1724:ich
1646:ich
1490:ich
1449:ich
1405:ich
1092:ich
1061:ich
1025:ich
985:ich
830:ich
675:ich
655:ich
576:).
468:any
235:TWL
164:– (
2549:)
2532:)
2524:,
2465:)
2449:)
2420:–
2408:)
2377:–
2356:)
2332:–
2330:.
2296:)
2268:–
2259:)
2235:–
2226:—
2201:)
2174:–
2145:)
2113:–
2093:)
2069:–
2049:)
2026:–
2013:)
1989:–
1968:)
1941:–
1924:)
1905:)
1878:–
1858:)
1841:,
1824:)
1782:–
1761:)
1749:,
1745:,
1741:,
1718:–
1712:,
1708:,
1696:,
1692:,
1688:,
1684::
1674:)
1666:.
1640:–
1484:–
1467:)
1443:–
1423:)
1399:–
1397:.
1377:)
1365:or
1306:)
1255:)
1184:)
1109:)
1086:–
1078:)
1055:–
1043:)
1019:–
1010:)
979:–
971:)
921:)
858:)
824:–
815:)
780:)
720:is
701:)
669:–
649:–
647:.
584:)
563:)
364:)
356:.
344:)
336:.
271:,
268:,
215:)
158:|
154:|
150:|
146:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
52:.
2545:(
2528:(
2461:(
2445:(
2404:(
2352:(
2292:(
2255:(
2197:(
2158:/
2154:/
2141:(
2107:/
2103:/
2089:(
2045:(
2009:(
1964:(
1920:(
1901:(
1854:(
1820:(
1757:(
1670:(
1463:(
1419:(
1373:(
1357:,
1333:(
1302:(
1282:(
1251:(
1227:(
1180:(
1156:(
1105:(
1074:(
1039:(
1006:(
967:(
948:(
917:(
897:(
854:(
811:(
776:(
737:(
697:(
609:(
580:(
559:(
525:(
485:(
436:(
360:(
340:(
315:(
284:(
239:)
231:·
225:·
217:·
210:·
204:·
198:·
192:·
187:(
179:(
176:)
169:·
162:)
124:(
109:)
105:(
64:T
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.