52:. This was a difficult AfD to close, because this event is still unfolding and new information is coming in each day which could affect its notability. At this point, it seems too early to determine whether this court case will have lasting significance. If the notability of the case is still unclear after the news reports have died down and once there are no new developments, then take this article back to AfD at that time.
771:- run-of-the-mill criminal trial with no particular historic importance, adequately covered in the players' articles. Some have said a separate article is needed because of the amount of information here, but we shouldn't be going into this level of detail in the first place (are future generations really going to want to know that 'She had drank two glasses of wine, four double vodkas with lemonade and a shot of sambuca.'?).
1428:
last resort. The article itself gives numerous sources which indicate it's widespread notability. Other commentators have stated that there is no individual notability for the trial itself, i.e. it's only notable because of the famous people involved, but is that really a valid argument, after all there are still hundreds of reliable sources that discuss the trial, regardless of why it passes
1458:. When this AfD was raised there were no ongoing repercussions or evidence of the case's importance. Therefore the nominator was quite correct (though could've elucidated further!). It is debatable whether things have changed significantly because we're still too close to the event IMO. If one of the vile blabbing Twitterati is hauled before the courts too, maybe things will change!
217:
computer is playing up at the moment, making some things difficult. I suggest that a trial for serious charges where the 2 accused are both notable is itself somewhat notable. Also, the case is attracting a significant amount of attention in
Britain, as it touches on some wider issues of misconduct by professional footballers, by no means an isolated incident.
1581:. "R." is legally unidentifiable and McDonald has been found innocent, so most of the title is irrelevant. Evans is launching an appeal so now I'm not sure that if that goes to court it will still be referred to in the courts as 'R. v Evans and McDonald'. Plus I have not seen anywhere reporting 'R. v Evans and McDonald', but variants of the 'Ched Evans trial'.
386:
Knowledge (XXG) article. I say again, the trial in itself is nowhere near notable, no legal precedent is being set, it will not be referred to in other cases, it is a non-entity. The two men are notable, hence the news coverage, hence all coverage should be in the articles of the two men. You do not create an article for every news story.
1427:
the more I read these comments the more I'm dismayed. The nominator gave no evidence based rationale for deletion and many of the comments have been along the line of "merge and delete" which is not possible - I don't think this article should ever have come to AfD, deletion is and always should be a
216:
I created this article for the sheer practical reason that there was already a significant amount about the case in the biographies of the 2 players involved, and it made it easier to cover the case if this was combined into a single article. I recognise the article could do with improvement, but my
1832:
of coverage, and I can understand why some editors feel that that bar isn't met--we wouldn't usually count a cluster of articles at the time of a crime and another at sentencing time as "persistent", and rightly so. However, the
Twitter-related arrests, and their likely continuing is another matter.
1092:
now and is not required to have ongoing coverage. The original reasons for creating the article, detailed by PatGallacher, are sensible and perfectly acceptable. Any discussion with respect to merging can be had at the appropriate article talk page(s), this is articles for deletion, not articles for
1287:
Yes, most of the notability criteria are met, but one of those is that this means a presumption, not a guarantee, of inclusion and editors can reach a different consensus. I agree that the trial itself is worthy of inclusion in the players' articles - especially Evans, as he was convicted - but the
584:
agree - the trial itself isn't getting the coverage, the two famous people involved in it are, and to be honest not even that much. Compare the rolling news coverage in the US of the trials of OJ Simpson/Michael
Jackson and this in the UK - nothing. I honestly haven't seen it on new bulletins once.
1403:
Those references also show that coverage is continuing after the event and regarding the repercussions of twitter use exposing anonymous victims and possible inadequacies of the criminal justice system. So those comments that say the case is not notable in itself outside of the fact that famous
1624:
On
Tuesday 24 April, The Guardian said that "a number of arrests" had been made by North Wales Police, but subsequently edited the story to say that police planned to make arrests. There may have been a mix-up here, or the police may be holding off to get more evidence. Either way, the ongoing
385:
notable, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, like it across the world right now. Why do we need an article on the trial, saying exactly the same things as written on the two articles already? What purpose does this third article serve? Google 'R. v Evans and McDonald' and all you get is the
1432:
it does still pass it, a point that commentators arguing for merge acknowledge. Further reliable sources are available in the aftermath of the trial in the wake of twitter activity condemning and identifying the victim - this demonstrates wider impact. We must go with what the sources say.
1506:. Aside from the verdict (which is so far incomprehensible in its inconsistency), the case history is identical for both men. Without this article, the relevant sections in the two footballers' articles would need to have virtually identical content, resulting in duplication of effort. –
231:
There may be an argument for creating an article for dealing with
British footballing scandals, where players hit the headlines off the field for criminal and immoral activities. I don't know what that article would be called however. You could say it is an issue in the sport like
692:
Yes the trial is important enough to be mentioned on articles of the sportspeople effected, but the article should not exist in its own right as it is not a breakthrough legal case, nor does it warrant any additional weight due to the minor celebrity of the individuals involved.
671:
We are having this discussion because an article has been created on a non-notable court case that has received minor coverage in a few national newspapers. Is anyone actually reading this discussion or are we all just saying 'keep' because it shows up after a quick look on
409:: "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually
554:
where the individuals are notable within in their own right AND the trial is also notable due to sustained coverage over a long period of time. This is a pretty standard trial that can be covered in a couple of paragraphs by the two articles already in existence.
380:
articles updated with the events of the trial. There are hundreds of other news stories out there that have no
Knowledge (XXG) article and will never have a Knowledge (XXG) article. The two men are notable, that is why it is a news story. The trial itself is
899:
To be frank I never saw this verdict coming when I nominated the article. If anything I saw the case being dismissed. But now that it has it has ended like it has it can be merged to the Ched Evans article, whilst becoming a paragraph in McDonald's
844:. (note: at the time of writing the case has just concluded, subject to any appeals. Evans has been found guilty, McDonald has been found not guilty.) The notability of this case is solely due to the identity of the defendants. The guideline at
599:
Actually, this case does raise wider issues, which have been discussed on the internet, about sexism in football and abusive behaviour towards women by some footballers, a cause of some controversy in
Britain over the past few years.
984:
and merge some of the content to the existing sections on the subject to the two players' biographies. It is in itself not a particularly notable or a landmark case, as
English footballers have been charged with rape in the
166:
747:
plenty of other more notable footballers have been charged and convicted of rape. There seems nothing to make the case notable beyond the two defendants, which was bound to create press coverage. merge major details to
864:
summarising the main points of the case would be appropriate. While McDonald was also a defendant, he has been cleared, and good BLP practice involves not retaining an article that drags his name through the mud.
563:
both have had recent trials that received 100 times the coverage of this story and yet there are no articles on those trials. That is because the individuals were notable but the trials were not, as is the case
439:
as per argument above, the trial itself seems to fail notability and essentially is getting the coverage it is due to two professional footballers (thus being somewhat in the public-eye already) being involved.
1631:
are notable enough for an article. North Wales Police are still saying on
Twitter that "Arrests will be made following comments made on social media sites identifying the victim in the Ched Evans rape case (25
710:
All rape cases get coverage in the press, and this is being skewed somewhat with the alledged involvement of two notable people. This case is unlikely to change case-law, or have a long-lasting legal impact.
794:. Also Evans has just been found guilty and sentenced so there are more sources that have come out in the last hour which can be added to improve the article. It would be really ugly to put this in the
1304:
Your argument about notability deriving from those involved is reasonable. However the level of detail is not relevant to AfD since it's an issue that can be resolved through normal editing process.
523:
Try searching for "Ched Evans rape" or "Clayton McDonald rape" and you get a pile of articles. The case is receiving a substantial amount of coverage, it just isn't using this exact title.
1609:. Not so far at least. So there is the potential for notable legal issues to arise (people being arrested for naming rape victims on Twitter), but so far that has not happened.--
160:
121:
297:
502:
257:
918:
Does not need a seperate article, only often quoted cases, ones which form a legal precident, or ones that recieve large scale media coverage are deemed notable.
277:
126:
632:
The controversy about sexist and abusive behaviour by footballers isn't going to go away, whatever the truth of these specific allegations against these two.
94:
89:
98:
1288:
case itself doesn't warrant a standalone article as its notability derives entirely from those involved and the level of detail required is not great.
1084:
the trial is indeed absolutely notable as it (the trial) has had extensive coverage in numerous news sources. The article is exceedingly well sourced.
1481:
in 2011. Saying that this case is not notable does not make much sense in view of the amount of media coverage and discussion that it is generating.--
320:
This rape trial is about a Wales
International Footballer and has featured across most UK mainstream media as well as globally. It is fairly notable.
81:
413:
unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." It may well be widely report tragic celebrity news but it is not notable.--
358:, borderline Speedy Keep. Has the nominator even had a cursory look at the mountains of broadsheet / serious media coverage on this topic? --
1528:
Things have moved on considerably since the article was nominated for deletion on 12 April 2012, and it is no longer a routine rape case.--
1573:
I would tend to agree. Seen as this has developed a new dimension, similar to the "Twitter Joke Trial", how about renaming the article to
1606:
1526:
1166:
to Chad Evans. While this seems notable, it seems to be notable due to the individuals involved. Nothing about the trial seems notable.
1238:
You can't merge and delete! If you merge you must preserve the page history in order to comply with wikipedia licensing requirements!
181:
1349:
as per arguments above. Can be covered adequately in the Evans and McDonald articles, and case isn't sufficiently notable in itself.
1116:
17:
1804:. If the case is in future cited in a number of works relating to the wider context of sexism in football, then perhaps it would be
1477:
This court case raises a range of issues, including privacy and conduct on social media websites. In this respect, it is similar to
1371:
233:
148:
476:
1455:
1191:
406:
1605:
Wait a minute, I made that comment after reading above that that "Police have arrested a number of Twitter users in the UK".
197:
A court case that is not notable. The two accused are notable but the case itself is not unusual or a landmark in of itself.
1716:- since it's initial nomination the case has metamorphosed into a vastly more significant case with wider ramifications. ★☆
454:
I've striked out my !vote, I think it's become very prominent now what with recent Twitter developments. I'm in favour of
142:
1559:
85:
1866:
1847:
1820:
1780:
1763:
1746:
1729:
1708:
1683:
1652:
1619:
1593:
1564:
1545:
1513:
1498:
1467:
1446:
1417:
1398:
1358:
1337:
1317:
1299:
1267:
1251:
1233:
1215:
1175:
1152:
1134:
1106:
1076:
1051:
1033:
1014:
996:
974:
950:
927:
910:
891:
874:
828:
804:
780:
761:
735:
724:
702:
682:
664:
641:
627:
609:
592:
574:
532:
516:
492:
464:
446:
423:
400:
367:
350:
329:
309:
289:
269:
246:
226:
207:
63:
40:
1478:
1322:
Fair enough. Within the boundaries of delete vs keep, and given the issue of duplication mentioned below, I switch to
1224:
I've altered my 'vote'. Redirection seems pointless because no-one is likely to search for 'R. v Evans and McDonald'.
1038:
It's not possible to delete and merge, if you merge you must preserve the page history. Please clarify your comment.
1001:
Delete and merge is an invalid option, if you merge you must preserve the page history. Please clarify your comment.
138:
1833:
That, while recent, includes some coverage of this case past the routine. Perhaps to put it more clearly, when the
543:
1190:. The story has been reported internationally but this in itself isn't sufficient to warrant its own article (see
935:
Merge: The trial is not independently notable, and can be covered sufficiently in the articles on the defendants.
538:
Yes, that is because of the individuals involved. The case itself is not notable. It sets no legal precedent like
547:
1837:
gives quotes to the media to discuss the social implications of a side-effect of a case, some degree of lasting
188:
1829:
1801:
1554:
1065:. Absolutely no enduring historical significance, even if the general notability guideline is currently met.
1258:
Thankyou for the clarification! In that case I guess I'm 'voting' for a merge of the pertinent information.
1071:
1029:
886:
77:
69:
1578:
637:
605:
589:
528:
222:
1574:
1553:. Notable event becoming more notable due to ongoing coverage. As indicated above its not a routine case.
1378:
1062:
1862:
698:
623:
36:
1198:
the verdict may be seen as notable in the future (I cannot think of any instance of a footballer being
1024:
and perhaps also merge any useful info into the existing BLPs. Nothing notable about the case itself.--
1139:
Yes I know but in my opinion a merge proposal might have been more suitable than an AfD in this case.
959:
In light of the ongoing coverage and wider consequences of this case, it seems to in fact be notable.
1845:
1776:
1772:
1742:
1440:
1411:
1354:
1311:
1245:
1146:
1100:
1045:
1008:
733:
154:
58:
851:
387:
1613:
1587:
923:
904:
870:
757:
676:
568:
417:
394:
363:
346:
305:
285:
265:
240:
201:
174:
1838:
855:
814:
1066:
1025:
883:
776:
1085:
845:
1717:
1704:
992:
720:
633:
601:
586:
551:
524:
512:
480:
460:
442:
218:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1861:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1326:- with merging into the separate articles still an editorial option outside the AfD process.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1797:
1759:
1633:
1127:
967:
943:
694:
660:
619:
373:
1805:
1429:
1367:
1089:
791:
338:
1842:
1816:
1738:
1511:
1463:
1436:
1407:
1350:
1332:
1307:
1294:
1263:
1241:
1229:
1211:
1171:
1142:
1096:
1041:
1004:
730:
53:
1696:
1521:
Police have arrested a number of Twitter users in the UK, and are also investigating the
1834:
1610:
1584:
919:
901:
866:
799:
753:
673:
655:
why are we even having this discussion?. Notable trough reliable sourcing and WP:GNG.--
565:
556:
414:
391:
359:
342:
301:
281:
261:
237:
198:
825:
772:
325:
1202:
of rape). But I can't see any 'reliable' evidence of anyone drawing this conclusion
1700:
1669:
1638:
1531:
1484:
1384:
987:
713:
508:
1663:
Three people have now been arrested over their comments about the case on Twitter.
115:
1755:
1122:
962:
938:
656:
539:
1664:
1374:
1811:
1793:
1627:
1507:
1459:
1327:
1289:
1259:
1225:
1207:
1187:
1167:
861:
841:
795:
749:
560:
377:
817:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
546:, no wider issues in society are raised by the trial. Neither is it like the
1119:. Merge and/or redirect are appropriate options in a deletion discussion.
1692:
1522:
321:
337:. Per the above. Almost voted Speedy Keep on this. Clearly notable per
1117:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed
848:
suggest that when the perpetrator of a crime already has an article "
1855:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1771:
Far too much to merge. Multiple sources highlight notability
1206:
neither does the article make any claims of wider notability.
1691:- prominent trials, especially those that have ongoing legal
372:
Yes, it would appear to be a news story. I was keeping the
1625:
coverage of this case and the issues that it raises about
1377:. This is more notable than most court cases and is not
854:, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of
111:
107:
103:
1192:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(events)#Inclusion_criteria
479:'s list of association football-related deletions. ★☆
173:
824:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
187:
1841:and notability has been, in my view, evidenced. --
798:article as there is too much that can be written.
860:" We have no such size issues here, a section in
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1869:). No further edits should be made to this page.
729:"All rape cases get coverage in the press"? --
298:list of Football-related deletion discussions
8:
501:Note: This debate has been included in the
296:Note: This debate has been included in the
276:Note: This debate has been included in the
256:Note: This debate has been included in the
1754:- Agree. I also think the page is notable.
1366:Considerable media coverage that satisfies
503:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
500:
295:
275:
258:list of Wales-related deletion discussions
255:
1828:. The primary question here seems to be
278:list of Law-related deletion discussions
236:is (for different reasons, obviously).--
1404:footballers are involved are mistaken.
475:: This discussion has been included in
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
407:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (events)
1796:, with content also summarised at
850:it may be appropriate to create a
618:Not unless they are proven to be.
24:
1699:attest to the case's notability.
1525:coverage of the Twitter incident.
1194:, which makes this quite clear).
234:Homosexuality in English football
1808:to reinstate the article then.
1737:- I think the page is notable.
1456:notability criteria for events
1:
1577:? As with the aforementioned
1115:Polyamorph, please refer to
1479:CTB v News Group Newspapers
1086:Notability is not temporary
1886:
1848:15:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1821:12:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1781:00:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1764:19:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
1747:16:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
1730:23:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
1709:21:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
1684:14:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
1653:11:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
1620:11:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
1594:18:41, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
1565:17:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
1546:17:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
1514:12:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
1499:08:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
1468:12:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
1447:08:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
1418:20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1399:18:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1359:13:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1338:12:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
1318:20:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1300:10:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
1268:17:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
1252:15:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
1234:13:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
1216:01:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
1176:23:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
1153:17:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1135:16:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1107:17:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
1077:11:31, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
1052:20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
1034:00:39, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
1015:20:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
997:23:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
975:14:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
951:19:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
928:17:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
911:16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
892:16:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
875:15:49, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
829:15:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
805:15:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
781:15:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
762:14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
736:15:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
725:12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
703:23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
683:16:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
665:21:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
642:10:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
628:23:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
610:20:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
593:12:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
575:11:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
544:Murder of Stephen Lawrence
533:10:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
517:01:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
493:00:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
465:22:28, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
447:22:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
424:20:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
401:20:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
368:19:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
351:16:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
330:15:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
310:14:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
290:14:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
270:14:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
247:15:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
227:14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
208:14:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
64:16:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
1695:, are notable. The many
548:O. J. Simpson murder case
1858:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1454:- there are additional
78:R. v Evans and McDonald
70:R. v Evans and McDonald
1579:Trial of Paul Chambers
1093:merging/redirection.
1607:That is not the case
542:. It isn't like the
477:WikiProject Football
1575:Trial of Ched Evans
1347:Merge and redirect
1284:Merge and redirect
48:The result was
1336:
1298:
831:
552:People v. Jackson
519:
506:
495:
312:
292:
272:
1877:
1860:
1814:
1798:Clayton McDonald
1726:
1723:
1720:
1697:reliable sources
1679:
1677:
1676:
1648:
1646:
1645:
1562:
1557:
1541:
1539:
1538:
1494:
1492:
1491:
1394:
1392:
1391:
1330:
1292:
1133:
1130:
1125:
1074:
1069:
973:
970:
965:
949:
946:
941:
889:
882:. per robofish.
823:
819:
802:
745:Merge and Delete
716:
507:
489:
486:
483:
471:
374:Clayton McDonald
192:
191:
177:
129:
119:
101:
61:
56:
34:
1885:
1884:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1867:deletion review
1856:
1809:
1724:
1721:
1718:
1674:
1672:
1670:
1643:
1641:
1639:
1560:
1555:
1536:
1534:
1532:
1489:
1487:
1485:
1389:
1387:
1385:
1286:
1184:
1128:
1123:
1120:
1088:, it satisfies
1072:
1067:
968:
963:
960:
944:
939:
936:
887:
812:
800:
714:
487:
484:
481:
458:the article. --
134:
125:
92:
76:
73:
59:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1883:
1881:
1872:
1871:
1851:
1850:
1835:Home Secretary
1830:WP:PERSISTENCE
1823:
1802:WP:PERSISTENCE
1783:
1766:
1749:
1732:
1711:
1686:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1597:
1596:
1567:
1548:
1516:
1501:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1361:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1219:
1218:
1182:
1178:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1110:
1109:
1079:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1019:
1018:
1017:
979:
978:
977:
931:
930:
913:
894:
884:Kittybrewster
877:
834:
833:
832:
821:
820:
809:
808:
807:
784:
783:
765:
764:
741:
740:
739:
738:
705:
686:
685:
668:
667:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
613:
612:
596:
595:
578:
577:
557:Harry Redknapp
521:
520:
497:
496:
469:
468:
467:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
353:
332:
314:
313:
293:
273:
252:
251:
250:
249:
195:
194:
131:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1882:
1870:
1868:
1864:
1859:
1853:
1852:
1849:
1846:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1831:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1818:
1813:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1784:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1750:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1733:
1731:
1727:
1715:
1712:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1687:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1654:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1634:
1630:
1629:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1595:
1592:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1580:
1576:
1571:
1568:
1566:
1563:
1558:
1552:
1549:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1517:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1480:
1476:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1445:
1444:
1442:
1438:
1431:
1426:
1423:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1380:
1376:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1362:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1345:
1339:
1334:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1315:
1313:
1309:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1291:
1285:
1281:
1280:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1247:
1243:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1179:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1148:
1144:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1118:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1102:
1098:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1075:
1070:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:Shakehandsman
1023:
1020:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
994:
990:
989:
983:
980:
976:
972:
971:
966:
958:
955:
954:
953:
952:
948:
947:
942:
933:
932:
929:
925:
921:
917:
914:
912:
909:
907:
903:
898:
895:
893:
890:
885:
881:
878:
876:
872:
868:
863:
859:
857:
853:
847:
843:
839:
836:
835:
830:
827:
822:
818:
816:
811:
810:
806:
803:
797:
793:
789:
786:
785:
782:
778:
774:
770:
767:
766:
763:
759:
755:
751:
746:
743:
742:
737:
734:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
717:
709:
706:
704:
700:
696:
691:
688:
687:
684:
681:
679:
675:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
654:
651:
650:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
607:
603:
598:
597:
594:
591:
588:
583:
580:
579:
576:
573:
571:
567:
562:
558:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
536:
535:
534:
530:
526:
518:
514:
510:
504:
499:
498:
494:
490:
478:
474:
470:
466:
463:
462:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
445:
444:
438:
437:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
408:
405:I quote from
404:
403:
402:
399:
397:
393:
389:
384:
379:
375:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
333:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
291:
287:
283:
279:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
248:
245:
243:
239:
235:
230:
229:
228:
224:
220:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
206:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1857:
1854:
1825:
1789:
1785:
1768:
1751:
1734:
1713:
1688:
1668:
1667:
1637:
1636:
1626:
1614:
1602:
1588:
1572:
1569:
1550:
1530:
1529:
1518:
1503:
1483:
1482:
1474:
1451:
1435:
1434:
1424:
1406:
1405:
1383:
1382:
1379:WP:RECENTISM
1363:
1346:
1323:
1306:
1305:
1283:
1240:
1239:
1203:
1200:found guilty
1199:
1195:
1183:and redirect
1180:
1163:
1141:
1140:
1121:
1095:
1094:
1081:
1063:WP:RECENTISM
1058:
1040:
1039:
1021:
1003:
1002:
991:
986:
981:
961:
956:
937:
934:
915:
905:
896:
879:
856:article size
849:
837:
813:
787:
768:
744:
712:
707:
689:
677:
652:
634:PatGallacher
602:PatGallacher
581:
569:
525:PatGallacher
522:
472:
459:
455:
441:
435:
433:
432:
418:
410:
395:
382:
355:
334:
317:
241:
219:PatGallacher
213:
202:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1752:Strong Keep
1061:mainly per
852:sub-article
695:FruitMonkey
620:FruitMonkey
540:Roe v. Wade
411:not notable
161:free images
55:‑Scottywong
1843:joe decker
1794:Ched Evans
1773:Francium12
1739:Footballgy
1628:sub judice
1437:Polyamorph
1408:Polyamorph
1351:HornetMike
1308:Polyamorph
1242:Polyamorph
1188:Ched Evans
1143:Polyamorph
1097:Polyamorph
1042:Polyamorph
1005:Polyamorph
900:article.--
862:Ched Evans
842:Ched Evans
796:Ched Evans
752:. Rgds, --
750:Ched Evans
731:joe decker
561:John Terry
388:WP:NOTNEWS
378:Ched Evans
1863:talk page
1839:WP:EFFECT
1556:Edinburgh
920:Murry1975
867:Oldelpaso
801:Spiderone
754:Trident13
672:Google?--
509:• Gene93k
360:Mais oui!
343:Lord Roem
302:Mais oui!
282:Mais oui!
262:Mais oui!
60:| spout _
37:talk page
1865:or in a
1790:redirect
1693:sequelae
1632:April)."
1561:Wanderer
1523:Sky News
1372:Guardian
1196:Possibly
1164:Redirect
846:WP:CRIME
826:ItsZippy
815:Relisted
773:Robofish
122:View log
39:or in a
1701:Bearian
1611:Echetus
1603:Comment
1585:Echetus
1570:Comment
1519:Comment
1475:Comment
1452:Comment
1425:Comment
1073:Caldron
985:past.--
902:Echetus
897:Comment
715:Lugnuts
674:Echetus
590:Snowman
566:Echetus
564:here.--
456:keeping
415:Echetus
392:Echetus
238:Echetus
199:Echetus
167:WP refs
155:scholar
95:protect
90:history
1806:WP:DUE
1800:, per
1756:Wallie
1725:JAMMMY
1430:WP:GNG
1368:WP:GNG
1181:Merge
1090:WP:GNG
1068:Leaky
1059:Delete
1022:Delete
982:Delete
880:Delete
792:WP:GNG
790:- Per
769:Delete
708:Delete
690:Delete
657:BabbaQ
582:Delete
488:JAMMMY
436:Delete
339:WP:GNG
139:Google
99:delete
1812:Trevj
1786:Merge
1508:Smyth
1460:Sionk
1370:, eg
1328:Whouk
1290:Whouk
1260:Sionk
1226:Sionk
1208:Sionk
1168:Nfitz
957:Keep:
916:Merge
838:Merge
587:Giant
461:Jimbo
443:Jimbo
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
16:<
1826:Keep
1817:talk
1788:and
1777:talk
1769:Keep
1760:talk
1743:talk
1735:Keep
1719:DUCK
1714:Keep
1705:talk
1689:Keep
1671:♦Ian
1640:♦Ian
1551:Keep
1533:♦Ian
1504:Keep
1486:♦Ian
1464:talk
1441:talk
1412:talk
1386:♦Ian
1364:Keep
1355:talk
1333:talk
1324:keep
1312:talk
1295:talk
1264:talk
1246:talk
1230:talk
1212:talk
1172:talk
1147:talk
1129:Cham
1101:talk
1082:Keep
1046:talk
1030:talk
1009:talk
988:SUFC
969:Cham
945:Cham
924:talk
871:talk
788:Keep
777:talk
758:talk
721:talk
699:talk
661:talk
653:Keep
638:talk
624:talk
606:talk
559:and
529:talk
513:talk
482:DUCK
473:Note
376:and
364:talk
356:Keep
347:talk
335:Keep
326:talk
318:Keep
306:talk
286:talk
266:talk
223:talk
214:Keep
175:FENS
149:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
1810:--
1792:to
1728:☆★
1381:.--
1375:BBC
1204:and
1186:to
993:Boy
840:to
550:or
491:☆★
383:not
322:IJA
189:TWL
124:•
120:– (
1819:)
1779:)
1762:)
1745:)
1722:IS
1707:)
1678:M♦
1673:Ma
1666:--
1647:M♦
1642:Ma
1635:--
1583:--
1540:M♦
1535:Ma
1493:M♦
1488:Ma
1466:)
1393:M♦
1388:Ma
1357:)
1266:)
1232:)
1214:)
1174:)
1124:AJ
1032:)
964:AJ
940:AJ
926:)
873:)
779:)
760:)
723:)
701:)
663:)
640:)
626:)
608:)
531:)
515:)
505:.
485:IS
440:--
390:--
366:)
349:)
341:.
328:)
308:)
300:.
288:)
280:.
268:)
260:.
225:)
169:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
1815:(
1775:(
1758:(
1741:(
1703:(
1675:c
1644:c
1617:e
1615:X
1591:e
1589:X
1537:c
1510:\
1490:c
1462:(
1443:)
1439:(
1414:)
1410:(
1390:c
1353:(
1335:)
1331:(
1314:)
1310:(
1297:)
1293:(
1262:(
1248:)
1244:(
1228:(
1210:(
1170:(
1149:)
1145:(
1103:)
1099:(
1048:)
1044:(
1028:(
1011:)
1007:(
922:(
908:e
906:X
888:☎
869:(
858:.
775:(
756:(
719:(
697:(
680:e
678:X
659:(
636:(
622:(
604:(
572:e
570:X
527:(
511:(
434:*
421:e
419:X
398:e
396:X
362:(
345:(
324:(
304:(
284:(
264:(
244:e
242:X
221:(
205:e
203:X
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
118:)
80:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.