799:--On one hand, the article does not seem to have enough standing or significance to stand on its own, and I would normally suggest it simply be merged and redirected. However, I do believe that the Ron Paul campaign in particular is the only presidential campaign at present for 2008 which has so extensively mobilized itself at the local, grassroots level. Since there are a significant number of grassroots efforts in the "Ron Paul Revolution," I do not feel this information will fit appropriately into the main Ron Paul article. Therefore, I recommend KEEPING this article for the moment, until it is no longer a current event (ie, Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" becomes history, etc), and there is no more significant grassroots activity for the Ron Paul campaign. Just a note, if there were any other candidate who was running such a large grassroots campaign, I would recommend he/she be entitled to a similar article as well. --
1684:
one for official campaign appearances, polls, etc. Info will not be lost, this article will either remain as it is, be moved to another more descriptive name, or merged back into the original. I support keeping this article and moving things over from the official main campaign article that would better fit here. And if the consensus is that the name of this article does not properly reflect the contents, maybe rename the article (I don't have any better ideas...). I think the AfD tag should be removed, and ONLY possibly replaced with a suggested merge tag...but we should have another discussion on whether or not to do so. Seems to me that nearly everyone agrees not to simply delete this information in the article outright. So it boils down to keep as is, or merge into the main article. Time for a new discussion, let's start at page 1! :) --
292:"No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes." Wiki's not a crystal ball - and neither are you. :) The future of the article will be guided by consensus and constructive editing. Deleting an article just because you suspect it may become POV sometime in the future is not a sound basis. The article should be judged for what it is right now: a branch off of two other oversized articles that contains reliable sources and is notable. That it didn't start out that way is irrelevant, since articles can be improved. Also, this
3829:" This article does not contain tabloids, announcements, or gossip as its main sources - they consist primarily of substantial sources of competent journalism. The "Wiki is not a newspaper" is meant to prevent sensationalist news on celebrities or "flash in the pan" attention getters (like that duct tape bandit fellow). Paul's sustained widespread coverage, as well as his status as a Congressman and presidential candidate, mean that documenting his candidacy is neither sensationalist or temporary. I'd argue, in fact, that most candidates should receive as thorough a treatment as Ron Paul has had.
2420:- the definition of the term is different to different people, and every element of it can be more properly placed somewhere else (chiefly the campaign article - grassroots efforts on behalf of a candidate are part of political campaigns, not a separate phenomenon). If somewhere down the road the Ron Paul Revolution is recognized as a significant concept in political science, then it might deserve its own article, but for now it seems like a redirect to the campaign article and the incorporation therein of whatever useful content can be found in this one would suffice.
211:
activities of Paul's base independent of his campaign have received enough media attention to make it notable and warrant a separate article. Please re-read the article, which I've been working on improving. 3. The article documents a notable grass roots campaign independent of a politician's own official structure. Given the rarity with which this kind of phenomenon has occurred, I'd say this article has large potential to be useful in 2009 no mater the outcome because of the topic's importance in
Presidential election history.
3847:. I think the day-to-day routine reporting of a campaign for nomination, in and of itself, does not meet notability under this policy. If the campaign is revolutionary for introducing something new to politics, or if the campaign is especially historic, then its notable. This is not even a presidential campaign; this is a campaign to get a nomination. The person is notable, but this article amounts to political advertising. Further, there is the issue of being in the news for a
998:
article is both high enough with sufficient content to merit its own separate article...there's too much to merge (instead of further lengthening the Ron Paul 08 Campaign article, this article can be used to take some of the load off from the aforementioned article...official campaign activity should be detailed in the aforementioned article, and this article should focus on the grassroots aspects). There's far too much sourced and fairly high quality information to simply delete. --
1354:
grassroots activity is an excellent way to fix both problems. AFD after one day seems uncharitable when a cursory review of the sources suggests much useful minable material awaits gleaning; and breaking out much of the campaign article's material on
Internet, fundraising/moneybombs, straw polls, and supporter blitzes would be well-moved from campaign to Revolution. This is additional to the well-developed and unanswered points of smileyborg and Buspar.
2903:--- The r3VOLution is not about a man, the man Ron Paul is the first one to admit this. Rather, it is a continuation of the original American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence and the original Bill of Rights. It is deserving of its own page because it is much larger than the man Ron Paul. In fact, Ron Paul 2008 had nothing to do with the r3VOLution logo. This is a movement that needs to be documented. It is not a man says Ron Paul.
300:: "POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus." Do you have evidence Duchamps disagreed with another editor and so started this one to avoid consensus? I saw none going through the edit histories.
3420:
shouldn't we salvage what's useful from the article? At any rate, people !vote for delete and merges (meaning "stick relevant info in appropriate article") all the time. This is the first I've ever heard that GFDL doesn't allow one to do so (though that doesn't mean you're not right, necessarily) and it seems a little unnecessarily lawyerly to insist that the whole AfD is "spoiled" because of that. --
828:
allow it to be developed more than one day. If the article turns out to contain information that is either a) solely biased, or b) not important enough to meet
Knowledge (XXG)'s standards, then it should be removed. Essentially, this article was created "before its time," as we do not yet know the full significance of the phenomenon it describes. But I do see where you are coming from. --
3721:(2nd choice), but very strongly do not delete. There are plenty of reliable sources using this phrase to describe the grassroots campaign that it ought to be considered notable, but at the very least it is a valid phrase for a redirect. Note that nearly all of the arguments for "delete", including the nominator's, are actually arguments for a merge and redirect: "suggest merge", "the (
916:
registering. Google “Ron paul cured my apathy” Even the Nov 5 moneybomb was created by one such supporter. –My point being that many thousands of people interested in politics will change the face of US politicks, energized to back the next big thing they are willing to put their time, money and vote into. Wit the origins being “the Ron Paul
Revolution. I’d say that’s worthy.--
281:, right? This is a POV fork, which two editors are currently attempting to retroactively turn into a summary page. No doubt they mean well, but it will stay a proper summary page (once it achieves that) until about 5 minutes after this AfD completes. Perhaps someone less involved with the Paul campaign should divide it up.
3014:(which wouldn't retain value) and a good amount of hard facts (which do retain value). SO I don't see how either newspaper or crystal ball apply here. Redudancy is your strongest argument for deletion so far, but that can be resolved with some syncing up of the articles (which I've already done some). And there's still
625:
rationale follows my vote a bit farther down the page. Now, if the consensus IS indeed to merge and redirect this term to the main article, the redirect should link directly to the subsection where the information is moved to (as opposed to a redirect to the top of the Ron Paul campaign article). Agreed? --
2293:
discuss this on the talk page again so people can "revote" if they elected to simply delete the article at an earlier point in time, or if people wish to change their minds now that there is less risk of completely losing all information. By simplifying this debate and starting over, I'm acting in the
3450:
content, that still isn't a deletion. The content would remain accessible in the history. I understand that in usual terms you might see a pure redirect as equivalent to a deletion, since the content is not directly apparent in any article, but for WP purposes it's quite a different thing. Still, no,
2679:
I clicked on that link about "not a newspaper" and the word "newspaper" did not appear on that page once. I'd say an encyclopedia is a distillation of all newspapers past and present. Also, the article is good even if Paul drops out today. It doesn't depend on any prediction. Those of you who are
930:
And here we have the crux of the problem with these Paul neologism articles --- they assert that Paul's campaign is somehow "special", so much so that its slogans and slang take on encyclopedic value. In any other campaign, "revolution" is an empty peacock word. On the subject of Paul, it seems to be
624:
The idea of
Knowledge (XXG) is NOT so that "keywords" will have linked advertising information, so I disagree that the info in this article should be kept only so that it appears when a user searches for "Ron Paul Revolution". I believe this article should be maintained independently of the original;
225:
An "improvement" to an inappropriate article made by shifting content out of another valuable article can hardly be considered an "improvement" to WP as a whole. Again: you are creating a second article for the same topic. Paul's entire campaign is a grassroots effort. This is no different than would
2986:
was put up for an AfD the second time, conditional keep votes (i.e. wait and see if
Crocker gained popularity beyond Internet stardom) were considered equally valid as unconditional, resulting in a "no consensus" ruling. So the argument that a vote to wait is a vote to delete is incorrect given past
2437:
outright. In the nomination I suggested a merge, but most useful information in this article is duplicated elsewhere. It is unlikely that this poorly written ad about an campaign slogan for a minor candidate could ever achieve NPOV status. I hope the closing admin will take into consideration the
2326:
The argument is that (even though we aren't voting and shouldn't be) I count the tally to be 18 Delete OR Merge VS. 8 Keep at present. That is a majority, yet hardly a consensus as 30% argue to keep the article as is, while the remaining 60% are somewhat split between a pure delete and a merge. This
827:
Let me rephrase that. I believe this article should be kept due to its significance and one-of-a-kind following. And I argue to err on the side of caution when removing an article such as this one, which is what I was trying to get across. I believe the article should be kept for a period of time to
703:
It is appropriate to split things off an article when the content would cause that article to exceed size recommendations. Case in point, the List of
Appearances. This article would document the grass roots efforts - which are well recorded - and keep them separate from the official campaign efforts
345:
fundraising and intrest is not small. It is in
Mainstreem media TIME and theLos Angelas Times refering to “the Revolution” AKA the supporters. WP needs to define what this word as it is gaining in common parlance IE nightly news. It’s more of an ideology than a slogan which is why many will poo poo
2946:
Err, a quick glance at his contrib's shows he's been generally editing political candidates articles, not only Ron Paul ones. And that doesn't somehow affect his credibility to have an opinion on this AfD. I don't think you should be hunting for ways to discredit votes for "Keep" that disagree with
2635:
so main article isn't too large, as many others have said. Maybe revisit in 6 months, or if Ron Paul quits the race. If no one tells us editors that a vote is happening, most of us will never know, which is just plain stupid. A beloved article of mine was deleted before I ever heard of any vote.
1825:
So you're arguing that myself and others have not improved the quality of the discussion? You're both assuming bad faith and being uncivil. Your point might be valid if all I did was say "Keep per
Duchamps," but since I've refuted several of your arguments and been generally constructive, you don't
1683:
All that I have done is source a few things, add a few things (NOT from other
Knowledge (XXG) articles as you suggested), and change the See Also to a more descriptive one that explains this article is focusing on the grassroots efforts that are too large for the main article, and to go to the main
1134:
All right. However, isn't the point not what the article can be returned to but more what it can become? I've already improved the article by moving material that was cluttering other articles to this one. This article also allows for detailed info on the blimp and networking, material that doesn't
1107:
By your reasoning, a person who liked anime could never write an NPOV article on anime because they like it. That's bad logic. I, for one, have a history of cleaning up Ron Paul articles to keep the personal opinion out and only including opinions from secondary sources. If you see instances of POV
644:
The term "Ron Paul Revolution" has been used in multiple news reporters, such as Jack Cafferty. It is therefore worth having an article that details what it is precisely. I've seen news articles describing the "revolution" in papers like the Washington Post and other places, which means the article
210:
A reply per points: 1. That another article about Ron Paul became a center for OR and coatrack is irrelevant here. 2. The article is not solely about the slogan, but is about the term as it is used to describe Paul's grass roots support. Said usage is consistent with its use in the media, where the
3419:
I have always wanted this article deleted, what little useful info there is in it placed in the appropriate article(s) and possibly a redirect placed on the page. I changed this to a simple delete later on to be clearer about this. Perhaps I used the word "merge" carelessly (or maybe not)--but why
2859:
Let's not get stuck on the CONTENT of articles; when an article is deleted, it is because the article's name in and of itself is inappropriate, insignificant, etc. Content can always be changed to better fit WP's standards and the article's title. But the title itself determines whether an article
860:
That policy isn't relevant to this particular AfD, as the article in question does not contain speculation and is well sourced. Also, a vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is NOT a vote to delete, per past AfD precedent where allowing a current event to pass and then going back to reevaluate
246:
is 83 Kb and his campaign article is 119 Kb, so creating new articles to contain subsets of the info there is not only warranted but expected. This article is just one such subset. Given the continued length of the parent articles, more branches may be appropriate. After all, so long as an article
2826:
as possible. Remember that noteworthiness is determined by the media attention it receives. So your argument that it's not noteworthy is countered by the very presence of secondary sources. Remember, the perfect article "is long enough to provide sufficient information, depth, and analysis on its
1478:
as clearly notable in its own right as a grassroots campaign. Any information here overlapping with the campaign article (e.g. details of moneybomb, Boston tea party, internet rankings, social networking) should be kept here and summarised in the campaign article, with See Also links to Ron Paul
915:
Regardless if Ron Paul does not become nominated/elected, the "Revolution" is still valid. Because this is the first time in recent/digital history that thousand of people have become interested in a canadite in a personal way via meetup.com as well thousands of first time would be voters are now
645:
passes the "perfect article test." I suggest having the article be about the people who support Ron Paul and their efforts that are independent of the official campaign, such as the money bombs, blimp, and fund raising. This would keep the article on the official campaign from becoming cluttered.
314:
This is a second article about the Paul campaign, ostensibly about the campaign slogan (a conceit not shared by any other '08 campaign), but really about how the Paul campaign is different/better/grassrootser-y than others. I'm going to opt to continue to call it a POV fork, but I understand your
3855:
not all) do not have historic importance beyond their relatively short era. I interpret that to mean "brief time". If, at some time later, this campaign ended up influencing the outcome of policy or further politics, then a seperate article may be warranted. I see nothing in this article that
3489:
Regardless --- yes, you're right, there's no merge-and-delete. In the interest of avoiding an unproductive DRV debate, I think it's safe to assume that the merge-and-delete crowd is fine with merge-and-redirect; I know other AfD's have "discounted" merge-and-delete, but, come on, don't you think
3013:
I, for one, can say it's going to remain valuable, as right now we have 1 article on the candidate, 1 on his official campaign (plus sub articles), and 1 on the independent grassroots effort. How would information on that not be valuable later on? There's little if any speculation in the article
2499:
Hmmm. Good idea. There ought to be a separate article about the Goldwater revolution too - even though it was much smaller, and has till now been put to bed by the neocons. The Ron Paul Revolution is resurrecting it and giving it a much more libertarian flavor. It could be incorporated into this
1353:
for a very simple reason (I may go into the other subreasons and rebuttals later). There is a consensus here for keeping the usable content (i.e., high number of "merge" comments), and the current campaign article is already overlong at 110K: so breaking it out in summary style into official and
3129:
Thanks Sharkface! Rather than try to analyze the above morass and reply point-by-point (as another editor seems keen on doing), I will merely append here to voice my confidence that a neutral admin will find a nonconsensus closure, and to re-emphasize a glaring problem with deletion (especially
2292:
But see, the problem is that an AfD that goes through as Delete risks losing info in the article if not properly merged. IF the consensus of "merge" is reached, then relevant info should be merged and this article turned into a redirect. The AfD should be suspended (or Keep), and we will simply
2266:
You're right, there is no "snowball keep." But if you read through the votes, nearly every person agrees (=consensus) to NOT delete the article without a merge first. So thus, the discussion becomes merge or keep. (Don't forget - a merge means this article essentially will be deleted, just the
1122:
I'm not saying what you can or can't write, and my reasons for deleting the article, spelled out at the top of this page, have nothing to do with your POV. I'm simply disputing the idea that there is some "NPOV status" for this article to "return" to; the article was created as a POV fork of an
1012:
This article references Myspace, Facebook, YouTube, press releases, The Ron Paul Blog (to "verify" that Paul has "surpassed" Obama), Meetup.com, a Ron Paul chat log, "Hotties 4 Ron Paul", and 3 different Ron Paul vanity domains. Much of the "high quality" sourcing simply repeats content already
2371:
One thing to remember: AfD's aren't decided by majority rule, but by the application of Wiki policy. Even if there are fewer keep votes than delete votes, if the keep votes make better arguments, the article will be kept (assuming the admin reads the discussion as they're supposed to). So, the
997:
Yes, BUT that's just how the article is written at present. With some editing it can be restored to a NPOV status. Most importantly, articles should not be deleted due the the content of the article, but ONLY for the content/significance of the article title itself. I think the quality of this
2356:
Yes, right, 19-8. But closing in on 3-1 against? No, it's much closer to 2-1 against (2.375-1 to be exact). And remember, that 2-1 is lumping pure deletes and votes to merge into one category. My only point was that there is not a consensus yet, however. But anyways, if you are so opposed to
1454:
If you've read the article recently, you'd see that I've moved material into this article that is not repeated in the other two, so your redundancy argument no longer applies since this article now contains more details, with the other two only have brief summaries and "See also" links.
3130:
one-day deletion of an article that is well-sourced and content-worthy even though it hasn't had time to be developed properly). Most of the delete comments have "merge" elements. So the problem is not content but placement. However, the deletion would ignore the standing consensus at
2003:), then the information can also be added to the 2008 presidential election article. But as it is, it's just a campaign tactic, one that, in the longer scheme of things, will end up being only a minor blip. This is a slogan - nothing more, and it deserves no special treatment. --
718:
Yeah, I'm sure you're right. Without knowing that on "June 5, 2007 Paul was interviewed by Laura Knoy on New Hampshire Public Radio" or that on "September 14, 2007 Paul spoke at Seattle University in Seattle, Washington" we wouldn't have any idea what his campaign was about.
2045:
possibly delete in distance future, The Ron Paul Revolution has become a part of pop-culture and people at least for now and maybe in the distance future would want to know what Ron Paul Revolution meant when and if the concept is still active in political discourse just like
610:, and make more encyclopedic. I just want someone to be able to do a WP word search and find it. Without reading the "whole page". Would prefer It's own page but am not opposed to merge, and make more encyclopedic. Maybe some off you folks would lend a hand in edditing?--
3506:. Only "delete" or "delete and redirect" !votes count towards deletion (that is, blanking the history) -- all other !votes are arguments for some version or another of "keep" (even a redirect without merge is a "keep" for AfD purposes, because the history remains). --
1591:
I never said that the Boston Tea Party event should be removed from the Moneybomb article, it should be mentioned there as an example of a moneybomb, but described in detail here at Ron Paul Revolution. The rest of your points are irrelevant to this AfD discussion.
3729:
does not require deletion or AfD at all, and an administrative decision would not have been necessary if the proper process were followed, and merging an article's content to other articles without retaining the edit history of the original article would violate the
3170:
It's funny to watch the things people will say when they forget that everything on WP has an edit history. Next time, before you strike "~20k" worth of content from an article, you might wait to see how the AfD on the POV fork you've decided to merge to comes out.
3362:
I don't know which AfD you're commenting on now, but I think this is the Nth time I've pointed out that the nom wants a delete, and I want a delete. Just because I'm not going to be apoplectic if the article is merged, doesn't mean I commented in bad faith.
2521:- I'm officially changing my vote (Can I do that? I hope so...). The R.P.R. isn't yet notable especially since we don't know if he'll even make it out of the primary. Even if he does, this isn't notable enough as is to justify its own category in wiki.
193:
WP would not benefit from the (constantly changing) campaign slogans of every campaign getting articles; where do we draw the line? Presidents? Senators? State senators? There are already venues in WP for this content --- the articles on the campaigns
2267:
useful info will be "salvaged" first.) I simply suggest we start the discussion over because this one got a bit messy and now we can rule out a pure deletion as there is definitely a consensus not to lose some of the info in this article. Okay? --
3150:
the way to decide where content goes; the simultaneous delete period hampers ability to move content and in fact encourages the redundancy itself, because of fears of this, that, or t'other vanishing. A great chunk ~20K has been removed from
3347:
you want a merge, either do it yourself boldly, or use the "requested merge" methodology. And you stated from the start that you wanted a merge (even if you changed your mind later), which means this nomination was procedurally incorrect.
1042:
The article has 50 some references, including the Associated Press, CBS, Time, Situation Room, Boston Globe, and others. Please read the article before dismissing it so readily. It already includes numerous reliable secondary sources.
3001:
I don't mean to suggest that I determine what votes are and aren't valid, but for what it's worth, WP is not a newspaper or a crystal ball; if you can't say an article is going to remain valuable, that's a symptom of a bad article.
704:(which are also notable), which go in the main article. Keeping articles a certain length by branching off sub-sections is good Wiki practice and not redundant, as you seem to suggest. That's how I see this article being important.
399:
I think Monsieurdl and Verad would be surprised to know they'd written favorably about Paul (diffs please); I see no reason to question Duchamps comb's statement that only neutral canvassing of Paul-interested editors was intended.
861:
its contents was done (such as with Internet celebrities). To delete, you need to show the article isn't noteworthy in the way it lacks secondary sources. This article does not lack secondary sources, so its contents are notable.
1512:
The Moneybomb article is about the neologism used to describe a grassroots political fundraising event - it is not limited to Ron Paul events. The November 5th event and the BTP should be described at their most detailed here.
3501:
Personally, if I were closing this debate (note: I'm not an admin) I would have no problem counting "merge and delete" as "merge and redirect"; that's likely what they actually mean. Note however that those do not count towards
2961:
Check his contribs; he edits other GOP candidates to add negative information to them, and adds positive information to RP articles, and that seems to be the extent of it. Thanks for giving me the chance to straighten that out.
1717:'s page. I have no way of knowing if they are pro or con. Or as to their political views. --Maybe I'll go and send a "NPOV invitation" to many more. Maybe some new ideas and opinions could stop all this incessant filibuster.--
1277:
with Ron Paul's presidential campaign page. The information is notable enough that it does deserve to be mentioned (with proper citations and NPOV of course), but I really don't forsee that it would ever need its own seperate
2793:
As I said above, "Those of you who are always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic."
3155:
on the presumption that this article will stand. I would appreciate the prior commenters questioning whether this simultaneous urge to merge is improving WP, or getting in the way of extant efforts to improve it. Thanks.
3039:
though I considered a merge. This is not unique to the 2008 election since I recall seeing this slogan used in the past, so it spans multiple elections. Probably the most ubiquitous campaign sign in Vegas this season!
2193:. If people want to roll back all the information into the campaign article, go ahead. But that article is huge. Just give this some time and let this article become stable, and then if it's unsatisfactory afd it again.--
2821:
The Ron Paul campaign article may be long, but it is also generally well sourced. Where a reliable source exists that provides a comment on a factor relevant to the campaign, it should be included to make the article as
2579:). This article is ostensibly a dump for the latest Ron Paul grassroots activity that find there way into the papers. It's long-term notability is dubious, except perhaps as a few lines scattered throughout Paul's 2008
477:
Article has been changed a lot since I originally cast my position; I no longer have a good sense for what the best way to arrange all the RP material is. Nor do I envy the closing admin who has to sort this one out.
241:
and, therefore, Wiki policy says that branching it off is entirely appropriate! If the Kerry article was having the same length problem, your hypothetical new article would be entirely justified. The fact remains that
3248:
won't allow it. If you merge text into another article you have to have some way to determine the original authors, who retain copyright, and have licensed that copyright under a license that requires attribution.
1907:
To notify other editors with a neutral "friendly notices" of ongoing discussions, messages that are written NOT to influence the outcome but rather to improve the quality of a discussion should be looked at with
3744:") should have no bearing on the existence of this article. If other slogans are notable then they probably ought to have articles too. I'm surprised that there is no separate article for the extremely notable "
1995:, since when do we give presidential campaign slogans, tactics, and movements, their own articles, except when extremely successful and only after the fact? (such as the eminently, and permanently, notable
1813:
A neutral invitation is still canvassing when it is only sent to people you believe would agree with you. I think you're being disingenuous. You can take it to my talk page if you want to argue further.
3308:(and I know you have 5x my edits) --- merge is a common outcome of AfD. The nom wanted to delete. I want to delete. John wants to keep. The outcome might not be either. Obviously, any of us can go do a
2755:
of content apparently detail anything ever said about the candidate by anyone notable. Perhaps editing is a better cure for the ailments of this article, not wholesale metastasis across the rest of WP.
1363:
better than having a separate "Ron Paul Blimp" article. The blimp is borderline notable enough right now to merit mention in a more generic article like this, but would be harder to defend on its own.
436:--- I dispute that any mainstream media outlet refers to "the revolution". When TIME prints the words "Ron Paul Revolution", they are referring to the campaign slogan. They do the same thing with the
2185:. afd is premature. This article, IMO, ought to discuss the grassroots campaign for Ron Paul. The presidential campaign article is bloated enough. This should not be a pov fork, but rather a sort of
511:
very biased, can be contained in the presidential campaign article and I definitely feel that the "Ron Paul Revolution" is a neologism, or merely an off-hand comment that may/not have much currency.
2831:
related articles, or sister projects." I argue that the article is too long not because it does not contain noteworthy material, but because some of the material is better placed in sub-articles
1700:
I don't know what you're trying to say about what "it boils down to", but it's currently 14 v 5 in favor of "delete", 4 of the 5 "keeps" were canvassed, and one of them is the article creator.
341:-True “Ron Paul Revolution” it is a slogan but it also refers to the supporters. As the grass roots supporters (in their mind) joining the revolution, change in America, we can also see from
2140:
was solicited and as far as I can tell I've never show views sympathetic to that kind of promotional article or had contact with much anyone else around here, so I couldn't tell why me. —
1572:
event you referred to earlier is the most prominent example of the marginally notable phenomenon of "moneybombs". But, for the sake of further expanding Paulite content on WP, you advocate
662:--- it's hard to dispute that the term is newsworthy; we don't need to dredge up every reference to the term. But the topic already has an article: "Ron Paul Revolution" is the slogan for
2947:
yours. I'm sure some of the other votes for "Delete" have been made by editors with similar edit histories, but to me, that's really not important unless they are sock-puppet accounts. --
670:. If boosters for every candidate did that, WP would be littered with useless articles about defunct campaigns. Why carry two articles, when one article can be improved and taken to GA?
2680:
always trying to shorten WP in one way or another forget the READERS, who want more content, not less. Let them decide what they want to read or not. This is certainly encyclopedic.
2327:
ambiguity, in my opinion, requires a clean debate to clear up the mess. So while you wait for the AfD to close, you might as well head over and put your vote in to merge over on the
139:
85:
3856:
amounts to the campaign being revolutionary, causing major changes to politics/policy in America, etc. Thus, I think a merge into the article about Ron Paul is the best outcome.
2467:
movement, the RPR is very likely to outlast the 2008 election season. RPR is Goldwater Conservatism on steroids. It provides enough information for at least one separate article.
1629:
page. I don't mind making the other pages smaller, but if this page is deleted the info. will be lost. We need to figure out where to put all the grassroots fundraising info...--
2714:
I never said he wasn't. I said that I wasn't aware. I don't check every day every article I've ever edited, so I deserve to be notified when one of them is up for deletion.
3799:- per nom. Can someone explain why this candidate essentially has three articles about an open campaign? If he loses, then all of this will be yesterday's news. Merge per
1108:
in the current article, feel free to remove them. But deleting an article because you think the person who started it has a bias is neither logical nor assuming good faith.
875:
Where did you get the impression that the only reason an article could be deleted was lack of notability? This article should be deleted because it is a redundant POV fork.
544:
article, and doesn't deserve its own article as it can find its rightful place with its rightful candidate and supporters. Makes perfect sense to me, and it doesn't stop
3626:
2596:
2584:
2297:, not my personal desire to have this article remain as it is - honestly, I could care less if it gets merged or not (even though I do have an opinion on the matter). --
2281:
Merge is one likely outcome of this debate. Keep is not. Either way: AfD's don't close on account of "messiness". Wouldn't have been "messy", had it not been canvassed.
3085:
Pro-Ron Paul article that would be better off as a paragraph in the Ron Paul Campaign article. Not neccessary, and in all probability will be forgotten in three years.
1553:
the only aspect of it that applies to non-Paul campaigns are its attempts to attribute every fundraising event in the 2008 primary season to attempts to copy Ron Paul,
1208:
If he wins or if maybe he had some impact on the 2008 election but other wise its just his internet buddies truing to get his name out there and wiki is not a soapbox
1374:(add: that would be an example of a neutral rename), including one section on origins of the term "Ron Paul Revolution". Pretending the debated article is about some
1222:
For what it is worth I am all in favor of giving this page "NPOV status" It has potential and to mark for Deletion after only one day seems like a bit of bad faith.--
1065:(or related), which is how they ended up on the nominated article creator's canvass list to comment here. There's no original good status to return this article to.
2103:
per Burz, tqbf. Please be wary of possible sockpuppetry and canvassing to keep articles like this alive. I assume good faith, but with RP supporters, good faith
1999:)) Put this into the campaign article, and if that gets too long, prune it. If Paul somehow miraculously gets the nomination (and I say this as someone who will
571:
People might wish to know what the "Ron Paul Revolution" is, and what exactly the phrase represents, but I think this should be presented in the main article. -
3851:. This is subjective as it is written, but I think this is relative. This campaign has a fixed length (irrelevant of the outcome). Most political campaigns (
2743:
are, predictably, duplicated almost in their entirety. A large list of "notable campaign appearances" dominates the latter half of the article. The article has
1382:
question as I and others state it. As stated, the question yields a clear affirmative. Disclosure: I successfully predicted this article's eventual creation on
1135:
belong in either the moneybomb article or in the article on Paul's official campaign since neither the blimp or the networking belong to the official campaign.
3106:. However, the idea that such a well referenced and well written article be deleted.... I do not think this bodes well for the future of Knowledge (XXG). --
3102:
As stated by several above users, this neologism has been used by multiple news sources. However, if the page cannot be saved, I suggest it be merged into
1741:, and you've contacted at least two or three other pro-Paul posters in an attempt to influence the outcome of this discussion since he raised the issue. --
2696:
Duchamps, the author, is very fully aware that this article is up for deletion. He has been quite active here and on a few of the other Ron Paul pages. —
2255:
What does this comment even mean? The AfD will close in a few days. How do you figure this for a snowball keep? Even with canvassing, this article loses.
1298:
The mention of Paul's slogan makes me go into hot flashes! I can't control myself! Just kidding. I've seen more trivial matters on kept on wiki though.
1061:"NPOV status"; it was created by a Paul partisan, and every person advocating for the article in this AfD debate has also written favorably about Paul in
1889:. Your implication that Ron Paul supporters are somehow poor Wikipedians is not appropriate for this discussion. Do not use such language in the future.
414:
I don't. WP has edit histories on all articles. Note the editors Duchamps did not request comments from. I think you're wrong and will leave it at that.
3282:
Yes, people care. A merge is completely different from a deletion. In fact it was incorrect in the first place to bring a requested merge to AfD -- see
3825:
are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and
1799:
page. Did you even check to see how many people I invited that wanted to delete the page? Check your FACTS before you espouse your simple mindedness.--
3725:) content from this page could contribute to" the campaign article, "can be contained in the presidential campaign article", "Delete and merge", etc.
2345:
It's 19-8 (closing in on 3-1 against); you missed the nom. I'll stick with the AfD debate; let us know if you figure anything out on your talk page.
3756:
article. This article isn't just about a campaign slogan, it is about a grassroots campaign which has attracted notice from the mainstream media.
112:
107:
2927:
116:
3692:
The strongest argument to delete this article was that it was redundant. However, I think I've eliminated most of the redundancies with both
3217:, and not a simple grassroots effort about some social cause, it makes sense to incorporate it as a section of the article about Ron Paul's
197:
What is the likelihood that this article retains any value into 2009? Even the successful Bush campaigns don't leave this kind of detritus.
3622:
3469:
Okay, I just reread the original nom, and you're absolutely right; I should have been more careful and specific with my choice of words. --
3218:
3103:
2772:
2736:
2580:
2456:
2153:
2084:
2021:
1440:
1317:
1176:
1150:
1014:
899:
and merge any useful info. The term is not notable on its own and the content applies to his campaign, which already has its own article.--
779:
663:
541:
464:
172:
147:
99:
49:
3593:
2190:
1926:
1194:
783:
2931:
3118:
2983:
2982:
The argument that voting to wait and see on future notability is somehow a vote to delete is NOT in keeping with past precedent. When
2112:
3821:
I suggest re-reading the newspaper section, specifically: "Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as
3696:
and his presidential campaign article, making this a proper subarticle like several others that exist. This leaves some overlap with
17:
3134:
to split, which this article and others are attempting to carry out; the proper placement for grassroots campaigning for Paul is in
3055:
2311:
I think you already made this argument, but there it is again. I think we can wait for an admin to close the AfD, though. I'm still
3740:
is the appropriate place for a merge discussion. By the way, the lack of articles about other campaign slogans (though we do have "
946:
Yeah, it's like there's never been an American grassroots candidacy that caught on and brought in uninvolved voters before ... no
3634:
1386:, but have not been minded to contribute to it. (I also believe personally that, if deleted, it will be recreated sustainably.)
686:
3474:
3425:
2443:
1746:
1501:) already have articles? Your argument is therefore that "internet rankings" and "social networking" need their own article.
1241:
851:
733:
I think you missed my point. The point of the branch off is to retain information without causing an article to be too long.
154:
3774:
Good point! Arguing that since other campaign slogans don't have articles this one shouldn't exist is a logical fallacy per
3146:
other articles, two of which are up on AFD; the helpful template for navigating them is also up for TFD. Deletion is simply
167:--- this is an article about the slogan of a campaign that already has a strong WP article. It is far more likely that the (
3312:
merge right now, but given the debate here, the prudent thing to do is to wait for the discussion to close; it would be a
2294:
363:
Duchamps comb should have mentioned that he is the creator of the nominated article; he also specifically requested that
3637:. This level of detail is unencyclopedic, I don't see the value to anyone fifty years from now. WP is not a newspaper.
2536:
1236:
So are you saying that the vast majority of editors here who support deleting this page are also acting in bad faith? --
3887:
2808:
All of us, on both sides, are substituting our own judgement for that of the anonymous reader. That's what editing is.
36:
3195:
3161:
2425:
1422:
1391:
1081:
405:
1969:--- I thought of SPA-tagging too; he's worked on several articles, but virtually all are all Paul campaign articles.
1378:
topic (such as about a term or slogan only, or about pro-Paul POV) would not be helpful for finding the consensus on
1413:
I did not say potential recreation was a deletion argument, but a personal belief. And protection is not proper for
1400:
You think we shouldn't delete the article because if we do, people will recreate it? That's what protection is for.
3656:
2923:
2908:
1336:, Yet another Ron Paul is wonderful article. The swarm of other articles about Ron Paul cover this sufficiently.
3865:
3838:
3812:
3787:
3765:
3709:
3680:
3646:
3611:
3596:
3530:
3515:
3496:
3478:
3460:
3429:
3402:
3369:
3357:
3322:
3299:
3269:
3258:
3230:
3199:
3177:
3165:
3124:
3094:
3077:
3059:
3027:
3008:
2996:
2968:
2956:
2941:
2912:
2887:
2869:
2854:
2843:
2814:
2803:
2788:
2779:. Permitting this fork to exist merely allows the items contributing to the excess size to persist unaddressed. -
2762:
2723:
2707:
2689:
2668:
2645:
2623:
2608:
2561:
2540:
2509:
2494:
2476:
2447:
2429:
2392:
2381:
2366:
2351:
2340:
2321:
2306:
2287:
2276:
2261:
2248:
2227:
2202:
2175:
2144:
2120:
2095:
2073:
2059:
2037:
2012:
1975:
1961:
1940:
1917:
1898:
1876:
1862:
1846:
1835:
1820:
1808:
1773:
1750:
1726:
1706:
1693:
1674:
1652:
1638:
1601:
1586:
1576:
and adding it to this article? One wonders if you'll be up in arms a week from now, when it's been copied back to
1522:
1507:
1488:
1464:
1449:
1426:
1406:
1395:
1345:
1326:
1307:
1287:
1265:
1245:
1231:
1217:
1159:
1144:
1129:
1117:
1096:
1085:
1071:
1052:
1027:
1007:
992:
967:
941:
925:
908:
881:
870:
855:
837:
822:
808:
791:
756:
742:
728:
713:
698:
676:
654:
634:
619:
599:
580:
561:
530:
501:
487:
446:
420:
409:
394:
355:
321:
309:
287:
268:
232:
220:
203:
158:
69:
3470:
3421:
3386:
2439:
2357:
contributing to the article's own talk page, so be it. I have no interest in persuading anyone to do anything. --
1742:
1597:
1518:
1484:
1237:
847:
150:
3886:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
3741:
2459:
is unnecessary, would make said article too long, and would be unwise, because it covers a separate topic. The
2166:
1256:
NO. I'm not saying that at all (don't be a troll). Only a select few (you) seem to have a personal vindetta. --
179:
achieving FA) than it is that this article about a neologism could ever become an FA. Three additional points:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
3736:
3186:, who also opted for deletion of the Revolution article above. What were you referring to ("next time, before
3073:
2599:
page, leaving only the Moneybombs & various minor events (the details of which are largely duplicated). -
2328:
2234:
103:
1543:
it's since become such a cesspool of OR and coatrack boosterism that the most prominent thing on the page is
3590:
2490:
2482:
2108:
1957:
1913:
1804:
1722:
1648:
1634:
1383:
1261:
1227:
1190:
963:
921:
787:
724:
694:
615:
521:
483:
472:
351:
3775:
3043:
2848:
I didn't criticize the article for being unsourced; I criticized it for being poorly-edited and redundant.
2572:
2524:
1182:
843:
3861:
3808:
3113:
2784:
2604:
2421:
2116:
255:, it should be kept. And you've already conceded both of them and seem to have no suitable response to my
2874:
Being poorly edited isn't something that qualifies an article for deletion, however, so long as it meets
384:
3213:- I'm pretty much on the fence here but overall I think that since this is a movement as part of Paul's
3051:
2919:
2904:
2055:
1283:
437:
187:
3138:
article, with most of the campaign article more appropriately needing to merge to this one. Right now
3676:
3659:
given proper respect by the newspaper editors, &c., and were the public adequately informed, the
2952:
2865:
2505:
2472:
2362:
2336:
2302:
2272:
2244:
2223:
1854:
Gotta love how your response to being told you're canvassing is to go and canvass nineteen more users
1689:
1593:
1537:
made "no consensus" on an AfD by arguing that it was a neutral term that applied to all candidacies,
1514:
1480:
1003:
833:
804:
752:
630:
497:
2659:
1738:
274:
3753:
3664:
3642:
3511:
3456:
3398:
3353:
3295:
3254:
3226:
3191:
3157:
3069:
2799:
2719:
2685:
2641:
2460:
2198:
2157:
2033:
1770:
1626:
1435:
This article "contains usable content" because it "repeats the content of other articles", such as
1418:
1387:
1077:
401:
95:
75:
61:
52:; it was content that was already in that article, therefore the GFDL requirements are satisfied.
3587:
3520:
I'd just be happy to see what the consensus is here. I'd be fine with a merge+redirect (again: I
2528:
2486:
1953:
1909:
1872:
1800:
1718:
1644:
1630:
1341:
1299:
1257:
1223:
1186:
959:
917:
904:
720:
690:
611:
576:
545:
514:
479:
468:
347:
3726:
3571:
3563:
3283:
2651:
2064:
1882:
297:
3068:- Nothing but spam by another Ron Paul supporter. Haven't they vandalized the Internet enough?
1774:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Paul_Revolution#Ron_Paul_Revolution
3857:
3804:
3761:
3108:
3090:
2780:
2697:
2600:
1930:
1664:
1370:
to remember that the question must be stated as being about the existence of an article about
589:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
3575:
3313:
3309:
3015:
2768:
1945:
256:
238:
3834:
3783:
3749:
3705:
3047:
3023:
2992:
2883:
2839:
2532:
2377:
2051:
2008:
1996:
1894:
1831:
1460:
1303:
1279:
1213:
1140:
1113:
1048:
988:
866:
738:
709:
650:
305:
264:
216:
3800:
3663:
would be pressured to comply, the Law of the Land would prevail, and there wouldn't be any
3602:
3305:
2823:
1886:
813:
3672:
2948:
2861:
2501:
2468:
2358:
2332:
2298:
2268:
2240:
2219:
2047:
1685:
999:
951:
947:
932:
829:
800:
748:
626:
549:
493:
376:
368:
3551:
3446:, depending on the degree of the merge, but even if you just redirect it without merging
2875:
2186:
248:
3638:
3507:
3452:
3394:
3349:
3291:
3250:
3222:
2795:
2715:
2681:
2637:
2551:
2194:
2029:
372:
3827:
topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial.
2776:
2576:
2455:- This new article covers an important and unique topic. Merging the article into the
252:
2000:
1868:
1622:
1337:
1076:
Thomas, since you repeat this charge, please see my and Monsieurdl's comments above.
955:
900:
572:
467:. Article is awfully written to boot, usually Paulites are a little more skillful.
3263:
Merge is merge. If the outcome is merge, leave a redirect. Does anyone really care?
3757:
3086:
2088:
387:
comment on this discussion; all of these editors have written favorably about Paul.
237:
You still haven't answered my point that the article I'm removing material from is
53:
3524:
a delete) --- that's still one less page that needs to be policed for boosterism.
1840:
Sorry you feel that way. But yes, I think you're here because you were canvassed.
133:
3830:
3779:
3701:
3019:
2988:
2879:
2835:
2373:
2025:
2004:
1890:
1827:
1456:
1209:
1136:
1109:
1044:
984:
862:
734:
705:
646:
364:
301:
260:
212:
3843:
My interpretation, and hence the reason I made the statement I did regards the
492:
Hahah, you are so right. Poor admin, what a mess we editors make. Ah well... --
3745:
3660:
3567:
2141:
380:
226:
have been an '04 attempt to create a "People vs. The Powerful" Kerry article.
3451:
I don't think the AfD is "spoiled". My comments were for future reference. --
2549:
article does not stand on its own. Topic is covered in the campaign article.
2218:
This discussion is getting too long and personal anyways. Don't you agree? --
277:
page; if it was, it wouldn't be called "Ron Paul Revolution". You do realize
3697:
3668:
3630:
3606:
3555:
3545:
3525:
3491:
3364:
3317:
3264:
3182:
I agree with your first sentence! I was referring to the striking of 19K by
3172:
3003:
2963:
2936:
2849:
2809:
2757:
2740:
2663:
2618:
2614:
2464:
2387:
2346:
2316:
2282:
2256:
2068:
1970:
1857:
1841:
1815:
1734:
1701:
1581:
1577:
1569:
1534:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1479:
Revolution under the Internet Popularity and Fundraising section headings.
1444:
1436:
1401:
1321:
1154:
1124:
1091:
1066:
1022:
1018:
936:
876:
817:
671:
441:
415:
389:
342:
316:
282:
227:
198:
183:
2662:--- if we have to predict that it merits an article, it probably doesn't.
1179:, as it already explains the grassroots effect of the campaign thoroughly.
3693:
3583:
3559:
3152:
3139:
3131:
1796:
1776:
If you have time I would like to hear your comments on this page. Thanks.
1714:
1618:
1062:
243:
176:
1149:
I'm sure you're doing great work, which will eventually be a service to
935:--- an actual revolt, which now has fewer words than this Paul article.
2739:
is "too big" is that it's poorly edited. For instance, the contents of
2463:
is unique in that it is independent of the official campaign. Like the
440:, which (properly) does not have an article separate from John McCain.
2210:
with above. As I mentioned before, close this AfD as this article is
3579:
3316:
for me to pretend like John and "Duchamps Comb" are OK with a merge.
983:; this appears more to be cheerleading for Paul than anything else --
666:. In effect, you aren't asking for an article about a notable topic:
3442:
was that you wanted it merged. That might mean deleting most of the
3286:
for the proper procedure. AfD is only for when you want the article
2028:) that much of it is a slogan and does not deserve its own article.
1713:
I did not canvass! Thank you. I only contacted people who edited on
3544:--- I believe it is quite easy to establish from past history that
2067:. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete.
816:. A vote to "keep until no longer newsworthy" is a vote to delete.
3880:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
3731:
3245:
3582:
members on their talk pages. With regard to this AfD and other
3018:
that says subarticles related to Paul's campaign should exist.
1663:
It's just you, Smileyborg, and Buspar that are doing that... —
1417:
recreation. I note you did not respond to my actual arguments.
2050:
has become a part of pop-culture and the political discourse.
1559:
it's now being cited as a non-Paul article to justify fitting
3778:. So that's another argument for deletion that doesn't work.
2132:
for crying out loud. As for the canvassing... well it seems
3752:
article to which it redirects is very much analagous to the
2214:
Then let's all move to the talk page and discuss whether to
1925:: I would remind all that Duchamps is basically an SPA (see
2771:
arguments for preservation are undermined by the fact that
2152:, Some information in this article is already found in the
1795:
This is the invitation I sent out to ALL who edited on the
3290:, which means its history will no longer be accessible. --
2650:
This is another "keep until no longer newsworthy" vote.
2481:
Your example disproves your point — there's no separate
2128:; this is a thinly veiled attempt to give exposure to a
3183:
278:
146:
Subject not notable in its own right; suggest merge to
129:
125:
121:
3823:
announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism,
2827:
subject, without including information that would be
2655:
2109:
Duchamps comb has already got the ball rolling there
1090:
Your comment refutes my assertion without evidence.
2233:I have started a new discussion on the matter over
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
3578:. It is obvous in his bias, Anti-Paul status, and
2747:of information about the fundraising results of a
3627:Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008
2597:Ron Paul presidential campaign developments, 2008
2372:outcome of this AfD can't be predicted just yet.
747:I strongly agree with Buspar's comments above. --
3890:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2617:and Tea Party stuff have their own article too.
3655:Funny you should mention "newspaper". Were the
3586:pages. (Admins I request you look into this).--
3142:is laid out in summary style with reference to
668:you're demanding that the WP carry two of them
1867:That's how you know he is a RP supporter =P
171:) content from this page could contribute to
48:. Any useful content from this article is in
8:
2438:pro-Paul canvassing surrounding this AfD. --
3700:, which can be cleaned up through editing.
2595:have already been transitioned over to the
1316:It's not that's it's trivial, it's that it
1021:. I think we'll live without this article.
548:from adding material relevant to Ron Paul.
3635:List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances
2775:is flooded with items that are simply not
2660:Knowledge (XXG) is also not a crystal ball
2020:all the cited facts and NPOV content with
1617:some folks are deleting sections from the
1359:One other fine point of Buspar's: this is
687:List of Ron Paul campaign 2008 appearances
569:Delete, merge, and make more encyclopedic.
86:Articles for deletion/Ron Paul Revolution
1531:problem with these neologism articles:
685:of them, actually ... there is already
83:
3667:. Good thing Knowledge (XXG) is not a
1057:Also, please note: this article never
463:Topic can be easily dealt with within
2833:such as the one being discussed here.
1580:so that it resides in both articles.
1443:. This article is a simple POV fork.
540:. This most certainly belongs in the
186:, quickly became a magnet for OR and
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
3623:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
3104:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
2773:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
2737:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
2457:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
2085:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
2022:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
1441:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
1151:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
1015:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
780:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
542:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
465:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
173:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
148:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
50:Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008
2191:Ron Paul Presidential campaign 2008
1574:removing it from the moneybomb page
1372:grassroots campaigning for Ron Paul
82:
2652:Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper
2156:, everything else can be merged.--
2065:Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper
814:Knowledge (XXG) is not a newspaper
279:these articles have edit histories
24:
3601:I think you want to take that to
3339:. But it shouldn't be the intent
2878:. And redundancy is easy to fix.
2295:best interests of Knowledge (XXG)
2212:NOT going to be deleted outright.
182:Another Paul campaign neologism,
2829:more suitable in "sub-articles",
3385:sorry, that wasn't you, it was
2024:. I agree with the user above (
475:) 19:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
3621:subject adequately covered in
3490:that's just process run amok?
1:
3866:01:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
3839:23:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3813:16:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3788:06:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3766:06:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3710:06:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3681:13:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3647:06:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3612:04:48, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3597:04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3531:04:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3516:04:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3497:04:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3479:03:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3461:03:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3430:02:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3403:02:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3393:bad, but the point stands. --
3370:02:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3358:02:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3323:02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3300:02:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3270:02:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3259:02:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3231:01:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3200:01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3178:01:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3166:00:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
3125:23:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
3095:09:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
3078:07:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
3066:Delete with extreme prejudice
3060:04:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
3028:03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
3009:03:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2997:02:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2969:05:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2957:05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2942:21:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2913:21:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2888:03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2870:05:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2855:03:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2844:03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2815:21:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2804:21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2789:20:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2763:20:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2724:21:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2708:20:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2690:21:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2669:20:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2646:20:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2624:17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2609:16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2562:16:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2541:15:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2510:04:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
2495:15:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2477:15:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2448:15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2430:08:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2393:20:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2382:12:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2367:08:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2352:08:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2341:08:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2322:08:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2307:07:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2288:07:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2277:07:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2262:07:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2249:07:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2228:06:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2203:05:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2176:04:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2145:03:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2121:02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2096:01:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2074:01:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2060:01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2038:01:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2013:01:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1976:05:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1962:04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1941:03:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1918:03:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1899:05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1877:03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1863:01:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1847:05:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1836:05:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1826:have a leg to stand on here.
1821:01:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1809:01:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1751:00:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1727:00:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1707:23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1694:23:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1675:22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1653:21:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1639:21:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1602:22:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1587:23:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1523:22:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1508:21:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1489:21:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1465:04:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
1450:20:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1427:17:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
1407:19:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1396:19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1346:18:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1327:19:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1308:18:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1288:16:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1266:18:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1246:16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1232:15:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1218:07:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1160:06:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1145:06:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1130:06:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1118:05:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1097:20:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1086:19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1072:05:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1053:05:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1028:05:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
1008:05:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
993:00:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
968:04:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
942:00:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
926:23:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
909:18:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
882:03:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
871:03:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
856:17:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
838:16:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
823:14:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
809:10:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
792:03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
757:10:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
743:08:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
729:01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
714:01:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
699:01:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
677:01:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
655:00:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
635:10:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
620:21:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
600:20:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
581:20:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
562:20:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
531:19:53, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
502:07:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
488:04:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
447:01:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
421:20:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
410:19:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
395:03:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
356:19:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
322:05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
310:05:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
288:05:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
269:05:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
233:19:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
221:08:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
204:19:12, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
159:18:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
70:01:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
2735:--- One of the reasons that
2593:Boston Tea Party Reenactment
1952:) Thanks "HelloAnnyong"...--
958:in 1984 and 1988 ... sigh.
3304:I think you need to reread
3244:as "delete and merge"! The
2577:Notability is not temporary
2001:caucus for him on January 3
239:too large by Wiki standards
3907:
3657:United States Constitution
1625:page and puting it in the
1561:yet another Paul neologism
1197:) 07:13, December 26, 2007
3387:User:Newsroom hierarchies
273:It's transparently not a
3883:Please do not modify it.
3742:Tippecanoe and Tyler too
842:Knowledge (XXG) is also
689:, believe it or not ...
32:Please do not modify it.
2613:Believe it or not, the
2386:Agreed wholeheartedly.
2107:is advised. I see that
1643:Welcome to Wikichaos!
931:more valuable than the
3723:appropriately verified
3241:there is no such thing
2483:Goldwater Conservative
2465:Goldwater Conservative
1563:into the encyclopedia.
1318:already has an article
169:appropriately verified
81:AfDs for this article:
3845:routine news coverage
3215:presidential campaign
2932:few or no other edits
2749:single fiscal quarter
438:Straight Talk Express
3849:brief period of time
3562:other users causing
3471:Newsroom hierarchies
3422:Newsroom hierarchies
3100:Strong Keep or Merge
2934:outside this topic.
2440:Newsroom hierarchies
1743:Newsroom hierarchies
1568:Let's be clear: the
1238:Newsroom hierarchies
1153:, where it belongs.
848:Newsroom hierarchies
151:Newsroom hierarchies
3754:Ron Paul Revolution
3665:Ron Paul Revolution
2461:Ron Paul Revolution
1771:Ron Paul Revolution
1627:Ron Paul Revolution
1545:picture of Ron Paul
1527:And now we see the
1493:Are you aware that
385:User:John J. Bulton
96:Ron Paul Revolution
76:Ron Paul Revolution
3719:merge and redirect
3335:Merge is a common
2753:fifteen paragraphs
1366:I would encourage
1123:existing article.
844:not a crystal ball
3629:, not to mention
3062:
3046:comment added by
2935:
2860:lives or dies. --
2543:
2527:comment added by
2519:Merge Then Delete
2422:Sarcasticidealist
2136:is going on, but
1198:
1185:comment added by
526:
175:attaining GA (or
3898:
3885:
3750:Draft Eisenhower
3727:Merging articles
3717:(1st choice) or
3609:
3548:
3528:
3494:
3367:
3320:
3267:
3211:Delete and merge
3175:
3121:
3116:
3111:
3041:
3006:
2966:
2939:
2920:Anappealtoheaven
2917:
2905:Anappealtoheaven
2852:
2812:
2760:
2704:
2701:
2666:
2621:
2558:
2522:
2390:
2349:
2319:
2285:
2259:
2172:
2171:
2163:
2162:
2093:
2071:
1997:Daisy commercial
1973:
1937:
1934:
1860:
1844:
1818:
1704:
1671:
1668:
1584:
1570:Boston Tea Party
1505:
1499:Boston Tea Party
1447:
1404:
1324:
1180:
1177:campaign article
1157:
1127:
1094:
1069:
1025:
939:
879:
820:
674:
596:
593:
559:
558:
556:
538:Delete and merge
528:
524:
520:
517:
444:
418:
392:
319:
285:
230:
201:
137:
119:
66:
58:
34:
3906:
3905:
3901:
3900:
3899:
3897:
3896:
3895:
3894:
3888:deletion review
3881:
3607:
3546:
3526:
3492:
3438:Well, what you
3383:self-correction
3365:
3318:
3265:
3173:
3119:
3114:
3109:
3004:
2964:
2937:
2850:
2810:
2758:
2745:five paragraphs
2702:
2699:
2664:
2619:
2552:
2388:
2347:
2317:
2283:
2257:
2169:
2168:
2160:
2159:
2130:campaign slogan
2089:
2069:
2048:Reagan Democrat
1971:
1935:
1932:
1858:
1842:
1816:
1702:
1669:
1666:
1594:Corleonebrother
1582:
1515:Corleonebrother
1503:
1481:Corleonebrother
1445:
1402:
1351:Keep and rename
1322:
1155:
1125:
1092:
1067:
1023:
952:George McGovern
948:Eugene McCarthy
937:
933:Rose Revolution
877:
818:
672:
664:Paul's campaign
594:
591:
588:as per tqbf. —
554:
551:
550:
527:
522:
515:
513:
442:
416:
390:
377:User:Monsieurdl
369:User:Smileyborg
317:
283:
228:
199:
190:Paul boosterism
110:
94:
91:
79:
68:
62:
54:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3904:
3902:
3893:
3892:
3875:
3873:
3872:
3871:
3870:
3869:
3868:
3816:
3815:
3793:
3792:
3791:
3790:
3769:
3768:
3748:", though the
3712:
3686:
3685:
3684:
3683:
3650:
3649:
3616:
3615:
3614:
3538:
3537:
3536:
3535:
3534:
3533:
3487:
3486:
3485:
3484:
3483:
3482:
3481:
3464:
3463:
3433:
3432:
3416:
3415:
3414:
3413:
3412:
3411:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3375:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3328:
3327:
3326:
3325:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3233:
3208:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3204:
3203:
3202:
3192:John J. Bulten
3158:John J. Bulten
3097:
3080:
3070:Arbiteroftruth
3063:
3034:
3033:
3032:
3031:
3030:
2977:
2976:
2975:
2974:
2973:
2972:
2971:
2898:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2872:
2819:
2818:
2817:
2767:I concur, the
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2711:
2710:
2693:
2692:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2671:
2654:--- there's a
2629:
2628:
2627:
2626:
2589:Ron Paul Blimp
2565:
2564:
2544:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2450:
2432:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2396:
2395:
2369:
2252:
2251:
2216:MERGE or KEEP.
2179:
2178:
2147:
2123:
2098:
2087:per WastedTime
2078:
2077:
2076:
2040:
2015:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1964:
1920:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1823:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1730:
1729:
1710:
1709:
1697:
1696:
1678:
1677:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1557:
1551:
1541:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1419:John J. Bulten
1388:John J. Bulten
1364:
1356:
1355:
1348:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1291:
1290:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1220:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1078:John J. Bulten
1055:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
912:
911:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
794:
774:per tqbf, and
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
701:
639:
638:
637:
603:
602:
583:
565:
564:
534:
533:
519:
506:
505:
504:
451:
450:
449:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
402:John J. Bulten
373:User:Katydidit
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
207:
206:
195:
191:
144:
143:
90:
89:
88:
80:
78:
73:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3903:
3891:
3889:
3884:
3878:
3877:
3876:
3867:
3863:
3859:
3854:
3850:
3846:
3842:
3841:
3840:
3836:
3832:
3828:
3824:
3820:
3819:
3818:
3817:
3814:
3810:
3806:
3802:
3798:
3795:
3794:
3789:
3785:
3781:
3777:
3776:WP:OTHERSTUFF
3773:
3772:
3771:
3770:
3767:
3763:
3759:
3755:
3751:
3747:
3743:
3739:
3738:
3733:
3728:
3724:
3720:
3716:
3713:
3711:
3707:
3703:
3699:
3695:
3691:
3688:
3687:
3682:
3678:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3658:
3654:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3648:
3644:
3640:
3636:
3632:
3628:
3624:
3620:
3617:
3613:
3610:
3604:
3600:
3599:
3598:
3595:
3592:
3589:
3585:
3581:
3577:
3573:
3569:
3565:
3561:
3557:
3553:
3550:is guilty of
3549:
3543:
3540:
3539:
3532:
3529:
3523:
3519:
3518:
3517:
3513:
3509:
3505:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3495:
3488:
3480:
3476:
3472:
3468:
3467:
3466:
3465:
3462:
3458:
3454:
3449:
3445:
3441:
3437:
3436:
3435:
3434:
3431:
3427:
3423:
3418:
3417:
3404:
3400:
3396:
3392:
3388:
3384:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3371:
3368:
3361:
3360:
3359:
3355:
3351:
3346:
3342:
3338:
3334:
3333:
3332:
3331:
3330:
3329:
3324:
3321:
3315:
3311:
3307:
3303:
3302:
3301:
3297:
3293:
3289:
3285:
3281:
3280:
3279:
3278:
3277:
3276:
3271:
3268:
3262:
3261:
3260:
3256:
3252:
3247:
3243:
3242:
3238:Hey, people,
3237:
3234:
3232:
3228:
3224:
3220:
3216:
3212:
3209:
3201:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3185:
3181:
3180:
3179:
3176:
3169:
3168:
3167:
3163:
3159:
3154:
3149:
3145:
3141:
3137:
3133:
3128:
3127:
3126:
3123:
3122:
3117:
3112:
3105:
3101:
3098:
3096:
3092:
3088:
3084:
3081:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3067:
3064:
3061:
3057:
3053:
3049:
3045:
3038:
3035:
3029:
3025:
3021:
3017:
3012:
3011:
3010:
3007:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2994:
2990:
2987:AfD rulings.
2985:
2984:Chris Crocker
2981:
2978:
2970:
2967:
2960:
2959:
2958:
2954:
2950:
2945:
2944:
2943:
2940:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2921:
2916:
2915:
2914:
2910:
2906:
2902:
2899:
2889:
2885:
2881:
2877:
2873:
2871:
2867:
2863:
2858:
2857:
2856:
2853:
2847:
2846:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2834:
2830:
2825:
2820:
2816:
2813:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2801:
2797:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2786:
2782:
2778:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2765:
2764:
2761:
2754:
2750:
2746:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2731:
2730:
2725:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2712:
2709:
2706:
2705:
2695:
2694:
2691:
2687:
2683:
2678:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2670:
2667:
2661:
2657:
2656:seperate wiki
2653:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2643:
2639:
2634:
2631:
2630:
2625:
2622:
2616:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2594:
2590:
2586:
2582:
2578:
2575:(see section
2574:
2573:WP:Notability
2570:
2567:
2566:
2563:
2560:
2559:
2557:
2556:
2548:
2545:
2542:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2520:
2517:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2498:
2497:
2496:
2492:
2488:
2487:Wasted Time R
2484:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2466:
2462:
2458:
2454:
2451:
2449:
2445:
2441:
2436:
2433:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2416:
2394:
2391:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2379:
2375:
2370:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2350:
2344:
2343:
2342:
2338:
2334:
2330:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2320:
2314:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2286:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2274:
2270:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2260:
2254:
2253:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2236:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2181:
2180:
2177:
2174:
2173:
2165:
2164:
2155:
2151:
2148:
2146:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2124:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2099:
2097:
2094:
2092:
2086:
2082:
2079:
2075:
2072:
2066:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2044:
2041:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2016:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1991:
1990:
1977:
1974:
1968:
1965:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1954:Duchamps comb
1951:
1950:image removed
1947:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1939:
1938:
1928:
1924:
1921:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1910:Duchamps comb
1908:negativity.--
1906:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1861:
1855:
1852:
1848:
1845:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1824:
1822:
1819:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1801:Duchamps comb
1798:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1775:
1772:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1737:that you are
1736:
1733:I agree with
1732:
1731:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1719:Duchamps comb
1716:
1712:
1711:
1708:
1705:
1699:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1676:
1673:
1672:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:Wasted Time R
1642:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1631:Duchamps comb
1628:
1624:
1623:Ron Paul 2008
1621:page and the
1620:
1616:
1613:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1585:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1562:
1558:
1556:
1552:
1550:
1546:
1542:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1532:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1506:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1477:
1474:
1473:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1405:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1352:
1349:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1325:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1258:Duchamps comb
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1224:Duchamps comb
1221:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:Milk the cows
1184:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1161:
1158:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1106:
1098:
1095:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1029:
1026:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1005:
1001:
996:
995:
994:
990:
986:
982:
978:
975:
969:
965:
961:
960:Wasted Time R
957:
956:Jesse Jackson
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
940:
934:
929:
928:
927:
923:
919:
918:Duchamps comb
914:
913:
910:
906:
902:
898:
895:
883:
880:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
826:
825:
824:
821:
815:
812:
811:
810:
806:
802:
798:
795:
793:
789:
785:
784:71.166.36.102
781:
777:
773:
770:
758:
754:
750:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
732:
731:
730:
726:
722:
721:Wasted Time R
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
702:
700:
696:
692:
691:Wasted Time R
688:
684:
680:
679:
678:
675:
669:
665:
661:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
623:
622:
621:
617:
613:
612:Duchamps comb
609:
605:
604:
601:
598:
597:
587:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
567:
566:
563:
560:
557:
547:
546:Duchamps comb
543:
539:
536:
535:
532:
529:
525:
518:
510:
507:
503:
499:
495:
491:
490:
489:
485:
481:
480:Wasted Time R
476:
474:
470:
469:Wasted Time R
466:
460:
457:
456:
452:
448:
445:
439:
435:
432:
431:
422:
419:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
398:
397:
396:
393:
388:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
353:
349:
348:Duchamps comb
344:
340:
337:
323:
320:
313:
312:
311:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
286:
280:
276:
272:
271:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
245:
240:
236:
235:
234:
231:
224:
223:
222:
218:
214:
209:
208:
205:
202:
196:
192:
189:
185:
181:
180:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
149:
141:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
97:
93:
92:
87:
84:
77:
74:
72:
71:
67:
65:
59:
57:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
3882:
3879:
3874:
3858:LonelyBeacon
3852:
3848:
3844:
3826:
3822:
3805:LonelyBeacon
3796:
3735:
3722:
3718:
3714:
3689:
3618:
3541:
3521:
3503:
3447:
3443:
3439:
3390:
3382:
3344:
3340:
3336:
3287:
3240:
3239:
3235:
3214:
3210:
3187:
3184:CheshireKatz
3147:
3143:
3135:
3107:
3099:
3082:
3065:
3036:
2979:
2900:
2832:
2828:
2781:CheshireKatz
2752:
2748:
2744:
2732:
2698:
2632:
2601:CheshireKatz
2592:
2588:
2585:developments
2568:
2554:
2553:
2550:
2546:
2518:
2452:
2434:
2417:
2312:
2232:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2182:
2167:
2158:
2154:main article
2149:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2125:
2113:75.65.91.142
2105:with caution
2104:
2100:
2090:
2080:
2052:Lord Metroid
2042:
2017:
1992:
1966:
1949:
1931:
1922:
1881:Please obey
1853:
1665:
1614:
1573:
1560:
1554:
1548:
1544:
1538:
1535:That article
1528:
1497:(and, thus,
1475:
1414:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1360:
1350:
1333:
1295:
1293:
1292:
1274:
1205:
1172:
1058:
980:
976:
896:
796:
775:
771:
682:
667:
659:
641:
607:
590:
585:
568:
552:
537:
512:
508:
462:
458:
454:
453:
433:
362:
338:
296:a case of a
293:
168:
164:
145:
63:
55:
45:
43:
31:
28:
3801:WP:NOT#NEWS
3661:politicians
3048:Vegaswikian
3042:—Preceding
2930:) has made
2523:—Preceding
2026:User:Golbez
1415:sustainable
1384:11/30 12:23
1280:Umbralcorax
1181:—Preceding
1013:present on
954:in 1972 or
950:in 1968 or
365:User:Buspar
315:objection.
259:citations.
194:themselves.
3746:I Like Ike
3673:JLMadrigal
3568:incivility
3564:wikistress
3190:strike")?
2949:smileyborg
2862:smileyborg
2777:noteworthy
2751:. Another
2658:for that.
2502:JLMadrigal
2485:article.
2469:JLMadrigal
2359:smileyborg
2333:smileyborg
2299:smileyborg
2269:smileyborg
2241:smileyborg
2220:smileyborg
2187:subarticle
1739:canvassing
1686:smileyborg
1000:smileyborg
830:smileyborg
801:smileyborg
749:smileyborg
627:smileyborg
494:smileyborg
381:User:Verad
275:WP:SUMMARY
3853:certainly
3698:Moneybomb
3669:newspaper
3639:Pete.Hurd
3631:Moneybomb
3580:harassing
3556:bad faith
3554:being in
3508:Trovatore
3453:Trovatore
3395:Trovatore
3389:. So not
3350:Trovatore
3343:. If you
3314:dick move
3292:Trovatore
3251:Trovatore
3223:Timberlax
2796:Korky Day
2741:Moneybomb
2716:Korky Day
2682:Korky Day
2638:Korky Day
2615:Moneybomb
2555:Gtstricky
2500:article.
2329:talk page
2195:Goon Noot
2134:something
2030:Happyme22
1735:User:tqbf
1578:Moneybomb
1495:Moneybomb
1437:Moneybomb
1019:Moneybomb
681:Would be
608:OK, merge
343:moneybomb
184:Moneybomb
3694:Ron Paul
3608:--- tqbf
3584:Ron Paul
3572:WP:POINT
3566:that is
3560:trolling
3527:--- tqbf
3504:deletion
3493:--- tqbf
3366:--- tqbf
3341:going in
3319:--- tqbf
3284:WP:MERGE
3266:--- tqbf
3219:campaign
3174:--- tqbf
3153:Ron Paul
3140:Ron Paul
3132:Ron Paul
3056:contribs
3044:unsigned
3005:--- tqbf
2965:--- tqbf
2938:--- tqbf
2928:contribs
2851:--- tqbf
2811:--- tqbf
2759:--- tqbf
2665:--- tqbf
2620:--- tqbf
2581:campaign
2537:contribs
2525:unsigned
2389:--- tqbf
2348:--- tqbf
2318:--- tqbf
2284:--- tqbf
2258:--- tqbf
2070:--- tqbf
1972:--- tqbf
1883:WP:CIVIL
1869:Burzmali
1859:--- tqbf
1843:--- tqbf
1817:--- tqbf
1797:Ron Paul
1715:Ron Paul
1703:--- tqbf
1619:Ron Paul
1583:--- tqbf
1504:--- tqbf
1446:--- tqbf
1403:--- tqbf
1338:Burzmali
1323:--- tqbf
1278:article.
1195:contribs
1183:unsigned
1156:--- tqbf
1126:--- tqbf
1093:--- tqbf
1068:--- tqbf
1063:Ron Paul
1024:--- tqbf
938:--- tqbf
901:Svetovid
878:--- tqbf
819:--- tqbf
673:--- tqbf
573:Connelly
553:Monsieur
443:--- tqbf
417:--- tqbf
391:--- tqbf
318:--- tqbf
298:POV fork
284:--- tqbf
244:Ron Paul
229:--- tqbf
200:--- tqbf
188:coatrack
177:Ron Paul
140:View log
64:(recall)
3758:DHowell
3690:Comment
3576:WP:GAME
3542:Comment
3444:content
3337:outcome
3310:WP:BOLD
3288:deleted
3236:Comment
3016:WP:SIZE
2980:Comment
2824:perfect
2769:WP:SIZE
2733:Comment
2703:Annyong
2189:to the
2091:JForget
1967:Comment
1946:WP:BITE
1936:Annyong
1923:Comment
1670:Annyong
1555:and yet
660:Comment
595:Annyong
523:eVolved
459:Abstain
434:Comment
257:WP:SIZE
113:protect
108:history
56:Keilana
3831:Buspar
3780:Buspar
3702:Buspar
3633:&
3619:delete
3603:WP:ANI
3306:WP:AFD
3083:Delete
3020:Buspar
2989:Buspar
2880:Buspar
2836:Buspar
2591:&
2587:. The
2569:Delete
2547:Delete
2529:Reinoe
2435:Delete
2418:Delete
2374:Buspar
2313:delete
2208:Agreed
2126:Delete
2101:Delete
2005:Golbez
1891:Buspar
1887:WP:NPA
1828:Buspar
1615:UPDATE
1457:Buspar
1334:Delete
1300:Reinoe
1210:Gang14
1206:Delete
1137:Buspar
1110:Buspar
1045:Buspar
985:Mhking
981:Delete
897:Delete
863:Buspar
772:Delete
735:Buspar
706:Buspar
647:Buspar
586:Delete
509:Delete
455:Delete
383:, and
302:Buspar
261:Buspar
247:meets
213:Buspar
165:Delete
117:delete
46:Delete
3797:Merge
3588:Ducha
3570:with
3552:WP:DE
3110:Shark
3087:Kevin
2876:WP:RS
2700:Hello
2150:Merge
2142:Coren
2081:Merge
2018:Merge
1993:Merge
1933:Hello
1929:). —
1856:. =)
1667:Hello
1529:other
1376:other
1275:Merge
1175:with
1173:Merge
977:Merge
778:with
776:merge
683:three
592:Hello
516:Shiva
346:it!--
294:isn't
249:WP:RS
134:views
126:watch
122:links
16:<
3862:talk
3835:talk
3809:talk
3784:talk
3762:talk
3737:This
3732:GFDL
3715:Keep
3706:talk
3677:talk
3643:talk
3594:comb
3591:mps_
3574:and
3558:and
3547:tqbf
3522:want
3512:talk
3475:talk
3457:talk
3440:said
3426:talk
3399:talk
3391:your
3354:talk
3345:know
3296:talk
3255:talk
3246:GFDL
3227:talk
3196:talk
3162:talk
3136:this
3115:face
3091:talk
3074:talk
3052:talk
3037:Keep
3024:talk
2993:talk
2953:talk
2924:talk
2909:talk
2901:KEEP
2884:talk
2866:talk
2840:talk
2800:talk
2785:talk
2720:talk
2686:talk
2642:talk
2633:Keep
2605:talk
2583:and
2571:per
2533:talk
2506:talk
2491:talk
2473:talk
2453:Keep
2444:talk
2426:talk
2378:talk
2363:talk
2337:talk
2331:. --
2303:talk
2273:talk
2245:talk
2235:here
2224:talk
2199:talk
2183:Keep
2117:talk
2056:talk
2043:Keep
2034:talk
2009:talk
1958:talk
1927:here
1914:talk
1895:talk
1885:and
1873:talk
1832:talk
1805:talk
1747:talk
1723:talk
1690:talk
1649:talk
1635:talk
1598:talk
1519:talk
1485:talk
1476:Keep
1461:talk
1439:and
1423:talk
1392:talk
1380:this
1361:much
1342:talk
1304:talk
1296:Keep
1284:talk
1262:talk
1242:talk
1228:talk
1214:talk
1191:talk
1141:talk
1114:talk
1082:talk
1049:talk
1017:and
1004:talk
989:talk
979:and
964:talk
922:talk
905:talk
867:talk
852:talk
846:. --
834:talk
805:talk
797:Keep
788:talk
753:talk
739:talk
725:talk
710:talk
695:talk
651:talk
642:Keep
631:talk
616:talk
577:talk
498:talk
484:talk
473:talk
406:talk
352:talk
339:Keep
306:talk
265:talk
253:WP:N
251:and
217:talk
155:talk
130:logs
104:talk
100:edit
3448:any
3221:. -
3188:you
3148:not
3144:six
3120:217
2083:to
1549:and
1539:but
1368:all
1059:had
461:.
138:– (
3864:)
3837:)
3811:)
3803:.
3786:)
3764:)
3734:.
3708:)
3679:)
3671:.
3645:)
3625:,
3605:.
3514:)
3477:)
3459:)
3428:)
3401:)
3356:)
3348:--
3298:)
3257:)
3249:--
3229:)
3198:)
3164:)
3093:)
3076:)
3058:)
3054:•
3026:)
2995:)
2955:)
2926:•
2918:—
2911:)
2886:)
2868:)
2842:)
2802:)
2787:)
2722:)
2688:)
2644:)
2607:)
2539:)
2535:•
2508:)
2493:)
2475:)
2446:)
2428:)
2380:)
2365:)
2339:)
2315:.
2305:)
2275:)
2247:)
2239:--
2226:)
2201:)
2170:TX
2119:)
2111:.
2058:)
2036:)
2011:)
1960:)
1916:)
1897:)
1875:)
1834:)
1807:)
1749:)
1725:)
1692:)
1651:)
1637:)
1600:)
1547:,
1521:)
1487:)
1463:)
1425:)
1394:)
1344:)
1320:.
1306:)
1294:*
1286:)
1264:)
1244:)
1230:)
1216:)
1193:•
1143:)
1116:)
1084:)
1051:)
1006:)
991:)
966:)
924:)
907:)
869:)
854:)
836:)
807:)
790:)
782:.
755:)
741:)
727:)
712:)
697:)
653:)
633:)
618:)
606:--
579:)
555:dl
500:)
486:)
408:)
379:,
375:,
371:,
367:,
354:)
308:)
267:)
219:)
157:)
132:|
128:|
124:|
120:|
115:|
111:|
106:|
102:|
3860:(
3833:(
3807:(
3782:(
3760:(
3704:(
3675:(
3641:(
3510:(
3473:(
3455:(
3424:(
3397:(
3352:(
3294:(
3253:(
3225:(
3194:(
3160:(
3089:(
3072:(
3050:(
3022:(
2991:(
2951:(
2922:(
2907:(
2882:(
2864:(
2838:(
2798:(
2783:(
2718:(
2684:(
2640:(
2603:(
2531:(
2504:(
2489:(
2471:(
2442:(
2424:(
2376:(
2361:(
2335:(
2301:(
2271:(
2243:(
2237:.
2222:(
2197:(
2161:S
2138:I
2115:(
2054:(
2032:(
2007:(
1956:(
1948:(
1912:(
1893:(
1871:(
1830:(
1803:(
1769:"
1745:(
1721:(
1688:(
1647:(
1633:(
1596:(
1517:(
1483:(
1459:(
1421:(
1390:(
1340:(
1302:(
1282:(
1260:(
1240:(
1226:(
1212:(
1189:(
1139:(
1112:(
1080:(
1047:(
1002:(
987:(
962:(
920:(
903:(
865:(
850:(
832:(
803:(
786:(
751:(
737:(
723:(
708:(
693:(
649:(
629:(
614:(
575:(
496:(
482:(
471:(
404:(
350:(
304:(
263:(
215:(
153:(
142:)
136:)
98:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.