893:: I'm willing to go to bat on this one, because I think that the reach of the precendent that could be set here is wider than at first it seems. There are a great number of university-related articles, about teams, student societies, specific buildings, etc., etc. that could be affected by the outcome here. Also, I think it is remarkably unlikely that neither the academic industry press (i.e. the sorts of magazines that university administrators subscribe to and write editorials for), nor the local Austin newspapers have never signficantly discussed these programs; it would probably only take a visit to the Austin library to find such stuff (or a non-Austin library with a really good periodical collection on microfiche or whatever), if the consensus is that the university press isn't quite good enough for
1031:
school the size of Texas probably has another 50 or so that could be unearthed from its website if the effort were spent. All of them will at one point or another be mentioned in the campus paper, all of them will be listed on cvs. Very few of them will have special notability outside the university. I see no evidence that this is one of them. I would suggest holding the bar very high on these. I certainly support very full coverage of notable academic people and institutions, but I would do so by not including things such as this unless there were major significant outside coverage amounting to clear notability beyond what the significance for people in the school or for its alumni. There isnt the least need for WP to describe these programs, the unv ersities do it well enough by themselves.
736:
reasoning. Sometimes I think the tendency of people to use
Wikilinks detracts from that, but that's another problem. In this case, the claimed independent sources are the school paper. Not what I'd call an independent, third-party source. For all we know, the people writing the articles (And I can't read them, the links are broken on the page itself) were in this program and assigned to write about it. I don't know, it's hard to tell for something written over 50 years ago that I can't even read today. However, it's nowhere near say, having coverage in say, a national journal or even a gov't survey. That might mean something, but even then, I'm doubtful of the value of an article.
1037:
If there were to be articles on interdisciplinary programs, they should be on distinctive subject oriented ones, about which there is something more to say than "the top 5% of the class" The program requires the usual distributional courses, and then it requires a thesis. All honor program require a thesis as the main characteristic. This is very much of a slippery slope, and slippery slope arguments are valid when there is no demarcation line, when the tendency to go downhill is apparent--and in this case actually defended-- and the consequences would be massive. But in any case this would still not be notable--this is all the way at the bottom of the notability slope. I call it a
710:: "Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight"; I can't think of anything that could possibly qualify for that description, in this very narrow context, better than the editorially-independent paper in question. University newspapers take verification and editorial review at least as seriously as commercial newspapers (perhaps more so, because they write all of their own stories, rather than relying upon AP and other newswires, and
1265:
RSs in a significant way--if long established, there are likely to be even books. But if it is used to mean anything much less than that, it is less likely to be notable--but many still will be. How we can discriminate effectively between a really major university and an ordinary major university is a little difficult. for some reason, some of the best & best known known US universities do not seem to have an organized group of WPedians there writing about the university. Perhaps the people here have better or at least more conventional things to do. (irony). 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
815:
problem of a general lack of wider significance. The school paper probably writes about a lot of things related to the university. Most of them do not merit articles. Your example of
Newsweek is highly inaccurate, the problem is not writing about News (which is a broad, highly-inclusive subject), but the nature of the publication. If the Daily Texan was as widely sold as Newsweek, it'd probably be a much better demonstration of notability to cite it. But I do not believe that to be the case.
942:: That wasn't the point; it was a hint to people who actually care about this article surviving as-is rather than being merged (or deleted) - I care more about the precential aspect of the issue - to go look and put some additional sources in there. They can't be all that hard to find if the program is recognizable enough that practicing attorneys all over the place are bothering to put it in their bios. I was not at all suggesting that the bios themselves establish notability. :-) —
752:: Re: "in this program and assigned to write about it" - That's simply not how public university newspapers work. I'm sorry you think that it is, but it's just not. This is pretty much precisely the distinction between such papers and those at high schools, where teachers and school administrators have total control over content and scope. Re: "I don't even see a need for a redirect" - Well, if there were no merge, there would pretty much necessarily be no redir. :-) —
852:: That's confusing the medium with the message, not unlike saying that nothing published by the Oxford University Press, one of the most respected publishers in the world, can be used as a source for something about Oxford University. Domain names do not speak to editorial independence; the actual nature of the author and the editorial entity have to be considered. The university newspaper is not akin to the university registrar's office. —
1062:: If that's the way consensus goes, I can of course live with that, but I don't think I see a reason to not merge. The article on a university should probably the degrees and majors it offers, I would think. Alternatively, if there is an article on this sort of honors program, then perhaps it simply needs a list of such programs and what universities offer them. I.e., I'm arguing for inclusion
690:: That's a merge rationale, not a delete one, and your main thrust seems to be "merge", so I wonder at the "delete" !vote. Regardless, I have to quibble with your reasoning. Of course the university itself is the principal area of coverage of the university paper; that doesn't lead logically to a conclusion that the research isn't independent of the university. That's like saying that
617:, what the typical requirements are sourced from various universities, the employment statistics of aggregate numbers of people who graduate with a degree in that major, etc. Those would probably be quite valuable articles. Which further suggests that unique/innovate degree programs at major universities are probably also valid articles, if they are non-trivial
773:
truly independent, I'd say, no, they're not, because they're still going to write about things related to the school far more than anything else. Really, that's part of their existence. Maybe there's something valid there, but without being able to access it, all I can do is trust my gut and say, this ain't good enough.
493:
cuts off there. The 2nd link is comparing UT's honors programs to those of the ivy leagues - that's "significant coverage". The last article is about the creation of the
Liberal Arts Honors Program through endowments. Wouldnt that also count as "significant coverage" ? Turing Scholars program also has coverage from
980:. It was intended for anyone who actually wants to work on this article and prove notability better, as a hint that there is probably material out there. The program would not be well-known enough to credentialize over it, if it weren't, well, kind of well-known, which almost automatically means there will be something
1264:
is a special problem. In US usage, it is often synonymous with college, the first level subdivisions of a university: there is found equally X University School of
Medicine, and X University College of Medicine. It cases like this, it is usually notable. Almost any such place will be talked about by
1036:
This isn't even distinctive--it's the name they chose to give their interdisciplinary honors program. It's so generic, apparently, that as the article itself says, it isn't even well known within the very university itself "Plan II Honors is often unfamiliar to those not affiliated with the program"
482:
These articles are about fund-raising, not the honors program itself. What do we learn about the honors program from them, besides that it needs more funding? I think they justify an article on the endowment more than one on the program. But it raises another issue -- what is the scope of
Knowledge?.
67:
PS: If someone desperately wants to merge these into one article and try their luck with that, I will undelete and userfy for such purpose. However, it must be noted that there's no clear consensus that merging would be effective here, so this AfD can't be considered a mandate for a merged article if
1005:
Um, the passage was not intended for me? Um, ok, so I can't reply to what you write or something? It seems like there's a bit of a hostile attitude, and not conducive to a discussion. I'm sorry that it apparently offends you that I don't agree with their being any merit in people's including this
621:
reliably sourced. I have to note in this regard that there are numerous majors that have evolved out of general computer science degrees in the post-Internet age, many of them multidisciplinary (mixtures of c.s. and business, c.s. and communications, etc.) that could easily support separate articles
1227:
schools at
Somewhere University" followed by uncited and unverifiable claims of prestige, exclusivity, or quality and a list of previous administrators is information that could easily be condensed into a single article/list. And were such entries in a list juxtaposed with each other, the laughable
814:
I don't know where on earth you got the idea that I thought it was a question of reliability. It's not. The question is not of that nature, but rather the question of independent demonstration of notability. Accuracy is one thing, and I honestly don't see it as a problem here. What I see is the
772:
I'd like to see evidence of it being otherwise, because you've only asserted your position on the subject, which is fine, but doesn't mean anything since my experience is quite different. BTW, you do know we're talking about something written in the 1930s? You may be confident that the papers are
673:
I'm sorry, but the Daily Texan isn't a sufficiently third-party source to indicate to me that these programs are sufficiently notable on their own. While the paper may be editorially independent, there's still no doubt to me that its coverage is focused on the university. Sorry, but if this needs
492:
I'm sure the articles give significant coverage to the honors programs, but I'm not 100% because these are pay to view type links. From the first link, "Plan II, an elite universitywide honors program, has been around since 1935 and has a stable of supporters around the state and beyond." and it
929:
Sorry, but what's mention on people's CVs isn't evidence of notability. I can't even understand why you're bringing up the idea. They're very much self-published sources, and nowhere near independent. If people want to know what an entry is on the CV, then I say it's up to the relevant body to
908:
21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC) PS: A quick
Googling shows that numerous professionals, especially attorneys, but also academics and others, mention the Plan II Honors program in their CVs, suggesting that it is a widely-recognized program and at bare minimum notable enough to support a redirect to a
872:
A lack of independent third-party sources is evident here. Argue that all you want, I don't consider a school paper to be even as independent as a separate publishing arm might be. Which might not be very much at all, depending on the circumstances. And that's only two sources. The others are
151:
guidelines. I tagged it with {notability}, and the only response was that it was mentioned in the student newspaper, the Daily Texan. If that's sufficient, then we should include every major, professor, student body leader, campus protest, etc. at every school, all of which are mentioned multiple
714:
that the newswires have the story right). Because of the often student union-tied investigative nature of a lot of university paper reportage on the internal goings on at the university in question, most university papers are far more reliable about that subject matter than the local commercial
472:
Not sure why you cant open the first two (they work fine for me), but they're titled "UT hopes to open new doors - Honors program needs cash infusion" and the second is "THE HIGH COST OF LEARNING Texas honors programs compete with the Ivy League" and the fourth link is about fund raising for the
436:
1094:
article might mention these majors/programs (but which ones? there must be hundreds or more at a major U.), but not in the depth they're currently addressed. Also, honors programs in general might be notable -- perhaps there are studies on the design, outcomes, history, etc. -- but an
Knowledge
1030:
I';m willing to go up against McCandlish on this one, because of the precedent. This is a individual specialized undergraduate program at a single university. Every college and university has dozens of majors and undergraduate programs, some with names matching those of departments, some not. A
735:
I see nothing especially needful in the way of merging. I don't even see a need for a redirect. Sorry. As for what makes an independent source, I suggest you consider that
Knowledge is not a collection of rules. Using a wikilink that describes something for you isn't a substitute for actual
646:
was the wrong word, but the conclusion is unchanged: The student newspaper likely publishes in-depth articles on all the subjects I listed -- student leaders, professors, academic programs, but I don't think the student body president of any university, for example, belongs in
Knowledge (unless
431:
418:
1118:: As SMcCandlish points out above, this might set a precedent (if there's not a precedent already?). It was not my intention to set one, but here we are ... When SMcCandlish proposed an article on honors programs in general, I thought I'd double-check that it doesn't exist.
612:
makes the difference very clear unless someone changed it yesterday while I wasn't looking. As for majors, most majors at most universities are almost totally equivalent; I wouldn't have any problem at all with there being an article about, say, anthropology or fine arts
793:
is unreliable because it writes about the news a lot. Topic focus isn't relevant to reliability. I'm tiring of this debate and am unwatchlisting this, BTW. I've said what I felt needed saying, others and doing likewise, and an overall consensus will emerge. Next. —
715:
newspaper would be. It is unwise to confuse a public university paper with a high school paper, which is typically a rigidly institution-controlled house organ (per US Supreme Court decisions that have, for better or worse, drawn a sharp line between the two). —
1006:
program on their CV's. It's just not exactly something I consider a meaningful act. It doesn't mean there's any notability, or even a hint of it. If it were somebody writing a biography of people who had completed the program, that would mean something.
537:
If we decide to merge the honors programs together, then I think the Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory would be outside of that merge. As far as I know it is not an honors program but a program of study under the classics department. Merging to
603:
something a few times, such as a professor or student body leader, that this would confer notability. That is not what is actually being suggested here. Coverage with depth, on the one hand, and bare mentioning, on the other, are not the same thing;
1179:: I do not see multiple, non-trivial coverage independent of the subject for any of the nominated articles. Also, per DGG above, a precedent for keeping this sort of article around wouldn't be helpful: Knowledge is not a course directory. —
571:
in matters pertaining to the basics of the university (as opposed to, say, the cutting edge of particle physics or what is happening in the Middle East today). I'd be OK with a "merge" result, but "delete" is out of the question. —
909:
merged section at the UT Austin article. I.e., it's should not simply disappear off of Knowledge, because readers will certainly be trying to find out information about it after encountering mention of it in "the real world". —
655:. The Daily Texan does not suffice, nor do resumes or our personal beliefs about the notability of the subject. Either we need to find objective evidence that meets the standards or we should delete the nominated articles.
521:. This information should be covered on Knowledge. I think the easiest organization is to keep them as separate pages. My second choice would be to merge them into one page. That would make sourcing very simple.
48:, with one redirect having already been created editorially. However, consensus is to delete the histories behind said redirect, so that is what I'll do. Feel free to turn the rest into redirects as you please.
962:
I have no belief that what any of these attorney's choose to put in their CV's means anything overall. It's a self-published source, and its usage could be nothing more than kitchen-sink credentializing.
984:
third-party about it in the academic industry press, etc., if someone takes the time to look. I don't care enough about the article myself to do so, but whoever wrote it might. I'm moving on now. Bye. —
1222:
episode or Pokemon character. Call me a reductionist or exclusionist, but the preponderance of these school/college/department stub articles that say nothing more than "The School of Something is one of
647:
notable for another reason). My local community paper, circulation 2,000, might publish multiple articles about the corner grocery, but it doesn't belong in Knowledge. No matter how much we discuss it,
526:
Our notability guideline states primarily that "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". Programs such as
323:
318:
1194:. I'm seeing no sign of real-world impact or attention -- and no, the school's own student newspaper is NOT anywhere near sufficient, no matter what handwaving goes on about its independence. --
327:
310:
789:
You don't seem to be reading what I'm actually writing; I've already addressed this. Saying that the u. paper is unreliable because its writes about the u. a lot is like saying that
674:
to be covered anywhere, mention it briefly in the section of the university's article describing the programs it offers, and link to whatever location they have on their webspace.
1122:
turned up many articles similar to those nominated for deletion, even some for high schools. No matter what we determine here, we probably need a broader standard for this issue.
539:
1218:- it's simply too fine a level of detail to have any non-original research, NPOV coverage. It's the same issue as the oft-cited example of having individual articles for each
1230:
I broadly support merging school/college/department-level entities into lists and support the deletion of any academic projects/groups/entities at any finer level of detail.
140:
277:
272:
1291:
Looks like it'll snowball into a delete, with two people (including myself) wanting to redirect or merge. I've went ahead and redirected it -- can't hurt. —
281:
264:
698:
is unreliable as a source about words because it is too tied to the topic of words. Also, I can't find anything about any Knowledge criteria for a "
1136:
563:, which like other public university newspapers is generally editorially-independent of the institution, is both multiple and independent for
1244:
559:: The primary notability criterion is met: multiple, independent reliable sources. I maintain that two separately-authored articles in the
185:
180:
189:
231:
226:
235:
113:
108:
172:
117:
314:
218:
377:
100:
17:
836:
BTW, I note that every last source on these pages is a utexas.edu domain. That doesn't indicate independent coverage to me.
364:
Question: Do I somehow list the 'bundled' nominations in the deletion log? If so, how (I don't think the template will work)?
306:
1095:
article could not list every honors program in the country. As I responded to Corpx above, if one of the UT programs was a
1275:
897:
purposes. As already noted, I don't have a problem with a "merge" result, but the case for "delete" is far too weak. —
473:
Liberal Arts Honors Program, which I would say counts as "significant coverage" for the Liberal Arts Honors program
268:
1210:. (Copied from Talk:WikiProject Universities) I find it difficult to believe that many schools/colleges/department
694:
is not an independent reliable source about billiards because it focuses so exclusively on billiards, or that the
1316:
1214:
that currently have their own articles fulfill the notability requirements, to say nothing of majors or programs
36:
1315:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
260:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1299:
1286:
1250:
1235:
1202:
1186:
1171:
1143:
1126:
1102:
1081:
1052:
1010:
1007:
996:
967:
964:
953:
934:
931:
920:
877:
874:
863:
840:
837:
819:
816:
805:
777:
774:
763:
740:
737:
726:
678:
675:
659:
633:
583:
549:
501:
487:
477:
467:
454:
443:
425:
412:
383:
368:
156:
81:
61:
376:
As a UT student, I agree that these should not have its own page, but I'll be glad to merge them all into
222:
176:
494:
147:
Plan II Honors is a major at U. of Texas - Austin. Majors (and similar programs) do not meet Knowledge's
104:
873:
quite clearly SPS. They may be true. That's not in question here. The question is really notability.
1297:
1284:
531:
393:
214:
168:
1091:
483:
Something notable in one small town is not notable to the English-speaking world; does that count?
1183:
448:
408:? For example, if they were a widely cited innovation in academia, then they would be notable.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1232:
1199:
1073:
988:
945:
912:
900:
855:
797:
755:
718:
625:
605:
575:
75:
55:
1293:
1280:
459:
The first two (at dallasnews.com) open to blank pages, the 3rd is about a grant to U. of
1156:
596:
527:
96:
88:
1180:
1048:
707:
568:
543:
463:
honors students, the last is about a "Reception to launch UT endowment campaign".
344:
298:
252:
206:
134:
1247:
1195:
1140:
1123:
1099:
894:
656:
648:
609:
564:
484:
464:
409:
365:
357:
153:
148:
70:
50:
622:
about them, again given that they are not silly and can be reliably sourced. —
1168:
498:
474:
451:
440:
422:
380:
653:
significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject
976:
Again, you do not appear to actually be reading what I'm writing at all.
595:: There's a logic problem I have with the nomination's wording; is uses a
1043:
599:
to suggest that under a "keep" rationale that if a student paper simply
1070:
per se. (Same goes for the co-nominated related deletion targets.) —
702:
third-party" (emphasis added) source. Either it is or it isn't. The
1309:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1097:
widely cited innovation in academia, then they would be notable.
1159:
guidelines to claim that a single university paper constitutes
608:
has gone over this again and again, and I'm pretty sure that
1228:
nature of their content would all the more readily obvious.
162:
Also nominating these other U. Texas majors and programs:
1119:
340:
336:
332:
294:
290:
286:
248:
244:
240:
202:
198:
194:
130:
126:
122:
1135:
I started a discussion on the broader standard here:
542:
would not be possible until that article is created.
540:
University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1319:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
1243:: The notability issue is discussed here:
390:Honors Programs at the University of Texas
378:Honors Programs at the University of Texas
1155:per DGG. It is against the heart of the
307:Program in Aegean Scripts and Prehistory
1137:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Universities
649:Notability requires objective evidence
421:about the honors programs in general.
7:
1245:Knowledge:Notability (organizations)
978:The passage was not intended for you
1216:within a school/college/department
24:
152:times in the student newspapers.
396:standards either. Can you cite
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
930:describe it, not Knowledge.
1:
1276:University of Texas at Austin
567:purposes, and the paper is a
651:, that meets the standards:
497:done by the State of Texas
1336:
1300:07:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
1287:07:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
1251:23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
1236:06:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
1203:01:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
1187:22:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1172:21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1144:21:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1127:21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1103:21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1082:01:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1053:01:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1011:07:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
997:02:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
968:02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
954:01:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
935:22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
921:22:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
878:22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
864:21:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
841:19:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
820:06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
806:02:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
778:02:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
764:01:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
741:22:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
727:21:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
679:19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
660:21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
634:21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
584:19:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
550:19:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
502:00:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
488:23:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
478:22:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
468:22:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
455:20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
444:20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
426:20:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
413:18:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
384:17:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
369:17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
157:16:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
82:10:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
62:10:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
1278:. Redirects are cheap. —
1090:Interesting. I think the
696:Oxford English Dictionary
261:Emerging Scholars Program
1312:Please do not modify it.
68:it ever goes up on AfD.
32:Please do not modify it.
388:Hmmm ... I don't think
597:slippery slope fallacy
398:significant coverage
394:Knowledge:Notability
1212:within universities
1092:University of Texas
356:per my nomination.
1064:of the information
1167:of the topic. --
1327:
1314:
1076:
1008:FrozenPurpleCube
991:
965:FrozenPurpleCube
948:
932:FrozenPurpleCube
915:
903:
875:FrozenPurpleCube
858:
838:FrozenPurpleCube
817:FrozenPurpleCube
800:
775:FrozenPurpleCube
758:
738:FrozenPurpleCube
721:
692:Billiards Digest
676:FrozenPurpleCube
628:
578:
406:reliable sources
348:
330:
302:
284:
256:
238:
210:
192:
138:
120:
78:
73:
58:
53:
34:
1335:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1317:deletion review
1310:
1072:
987:
944:
911:
899:
854:
796:
754:
717:
624:
574:
569:reliable source
532:Dean's Scholars
321:
305:
275:
259:
229:
215:Turing Scholars
213:
183:
169:Dean's Scholars
167:
111:
95:
92:
76:
71:
56:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1333:
1331:
1322:
1321:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1254:
1253:
1238:
1205:
1189:
1174:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1130:
1129:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1085:
1084:
1033:
1032:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1000:
999:
971:
970:
957:
956:
924:
923:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
867:
866:
844:
843:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
809:
808:
781:
780:
767:
766:
744:
743:
730:
729:
682:
681:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
637:
636:
587:
586:
553:
552:
535:
528:Plan II Honors
523:
522:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
446:
428:
371:
361:
360:
350:
349:
303:
257:
211:
164:
163:
145:
144:
97:Plan II Honors
91:
89:Plan II Honors
86:
85:
84:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1332:
1320:
1318:
1313:
1307:
1306:
1301:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1190:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1145:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1104:
1101:
1098:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1069:
1066:, not of the
1065:
1061:
1060:Reply comment
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1029:
1028:Strong Delete
1026:
1025:
1012:
1009:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
998:
995:
992:
990:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
972:
969:
966:
961:
960:
959:
958:
955:
952:
949:
947:
941:
940:Reply comment
938:
937:
936:
933:
928:
927:
926:
925:
922:
919:
916:
914:
907:
904:
902:
896:
892:
889:
888:
879:
876:
871:
870:
869:
868:
865:
862:
859:
857:
851:
848:
847:
846:
845:
842:
839:
835:
834:
821:
818:
813:
812:
811:
810:
807:
804:
801:
799:
792:
788:
787:Reply comment
785:
784:
783:
782:
779:
776:
771:
770:
769:
768:
765:
762:
759:
757:
751:
750:Reply comment
748:
747:
746:
745:
742:
739:
734:
733:
732:
731:
728:
725:
722:
720:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
686:
685:
684:
683:
680:
677:
672:
669:
668:
661:
658:
654:
650:
645:
642:I agree that
641:
640:
639:
638:
635:
632:
629:
627:
620:
616:
611:
607:
602:
598:
594:
593:Clarification
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
582:
579:
577:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
554:
551:
547:
546:
541:
536:
533:
529:
525:
524:
520:
517:
503:
500:
496:
491:
490:
489:
486:
481:
480:
479:
476:
471:
470:
469:
466:
462:
458:
457:
456:
453:
450:
447:
445:
442:
439:
438:
433:
429:
427:
424:
420:
416:
415:
414:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
386:
385:
382:
379:
375:
372:
370:
367:
363:
362:
359:
355:
352:
351:
346:
342:
338:
334:
329:
325:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
283:
279:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
237:
233:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
191:
187:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
165:
161:
160:
159:
158:
155:
150:
142:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
90:
87:
83:
80:
79:
74:
66:
65:
64:
63:
60:
59:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1311:
1308:
1292:
1279:
1274:Redirect to
1261:
1240:
1229:
1224:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1191:
1176:
1164:
1160:
1152:
1115:
1096:
1078:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1042:
1038:
1027:
993:
986:
981:
977:
950:
943:
939:
917:
910:
905:
898:
890:
860:
853:
849:
802:
795:
790:
786:
760:
753:
749:
723:
716:
711:
703:
700:sufficiently
699:
695:
691:
687:
670:
652:
643:
630:
623:
618:
614:
600:
592:
580:
573:
560:
556:
544:
534:are notable.
518:
460:
435:
430:oooh, found
405:
401:
397:
389:
373:
353:
146:
69:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1233:Madcoverboy
1165:independent
1074:SMcCandlish
989:SMcCandlish
946:SMcCandlish
913:SMcCandlish
901:SMcCandlish
856:SMcCandlish
798:SMcCandlish
756:SMcCandlish
719:SMcCandlish
704:Daily Texan
626:SMcCandlish
576:SMcCandlish
561:Daily Texan
495:this report
419:one article
402:independent
1294:Rebelguys2
1281:Rebelguys2
1177:Delete all
1157:notability
706:satisfies
149:Notability
1120:My search
1041:program.
615:as majors
461:Tennessee
432:some more
1220:Simpsons
1181:mholland
1163:sources
1161:multiple
791:Newsweek
712:assuming
644:mentions
601:mentions
449:One more
437:one more
141:View log
1241:Comment
1116:Comment
1079:‹(-¿-)›
1068:article
994:‹(-¿-)›
951:‹(-¿-)›
918:‹(-¿-)›
906:‹(-¿-)›
891:Comment
861:‹(-¿-)›
850:Comment
803:‹(-¿-)›
761:‹(-¿-)›
724:‹(-¿-)›
688:Comment
631:‹(-¿-)›
581:‹(-¿-)›
545:Johntex
324:protect
319:history
278:protect
273:history
232:protect
227:history
186:protect
181:history
114:protect
109:history
1262:School
1248:Guanxi
1208:Delete
1196:Calton
1192:Delete
1184:(talk)
1153:Delete
1141:Guanxi
1124:Guanxi
1100:Guanxi
671:Delete
657:Guanxi
485:Guanxi
465:Guanxi
417:Found
410:Guanxi
392:meets
366:Guanxi
358:Guanxi
354:Delete
328:delete
282:delete
236:delete
190:delete
154:Guanxi
118:delete
72:Daniel
52:Daniel
46:delete
1169:Haemo
1039:metoo
708:WP:RS
499:Corpx
475:Corpx
452:Corpx
441:Corpx
423:Corpx
381:Corpx
374:Merge
345:views
337:watch
333:links
299:views
291:watch
287:links
253:views
245:watch
241:links
207:views
199:watch
195:links
135:views
127:watch
123:links
16:<
1200:Talk
1049:talk
982:very
895:WP:N
610:WP:N
606:WT:N
565:WP:N
557:Keep
530:and
519:Keep
434:and
341:logs
315:talk
311:edit
295:logs
269:talk
265:edit
249:logs
223:talk
219:edit
203:logs
177:talk
173:edit
131:logs
105:talk
101:edit
1044:DGG
619:and
400:in
139:– (
1198:|
1139:.
1051:)
548:\
404:,
343:|
339:|
335:|
331:|
326:|
322:|
317:|
313:|
297:|
293:|
289:|
285:|
280:|
276:|
271:|
267:|
251:|
247:|
243:|
239:|
234:|
230:|
225:|
221:|
205:|
201:|
197:|
193:|
188:|
184:|
179:|
175:|
133:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
77:→♦
57:→♦
1225:n
1047:(
347:)
309:(
301:)
263:(
255:)
217:(
209:)
171:(
143:)
137:)
99:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.