597:- Just because someone may not be liked or respected by some within an industry does not make him less worthy of an encyclopedic entry. The initiator of this delete request demonstrates a non NPOV with comments like “Torossian and his staff of sockpuppets and meatpuppets” and even went as far as lying in his characterization of a “false listing of McDonald's as a client” and using that as a reason, The Businessweek article refers to McDonald’s as a former client, which lends to Torossian’s ability to garner such clients. The fact that he did have such a client is big enough for a small, new firm. Let’s be objective. The article could be a tad more neutral, but it is by no means non-noteworthy. The authorship of the piece is not a strong enough reason to deny the article, as the evidence of the subject’s noteworthiness. Just because someone may appear to have a COI in an article does not make it a COI, rather it makes it open to more scrutiny to be certain it is still an NPOV
1266:
article, it should mean that you accept that the article should be kept in the first place. Hence your argument that the article be deleted makes no sense.) The NY post info, in its current form appears to be ok and has not been removed from the article. Stop bunching everyone that says "keep" as an employee of this PR guy and stop these mangled attempts to try to get the article deleted based on spurious reasoning; you are only strengthening the case to keep the article by doing so. Lack of NPOV by itself should not be the sole reason to delete an article (unless the subject of the article itself is inherently biased); Instead, try to make the article more NPOV by adding/removing info that balances the POV, but in a way that follows wikipedia policies. And articles are deleted at AfD based on the strength and coherence of an argument and not on how many times something was said or how many said it. -
1062:: If new editors have joined Knowledge as a result of this and or other AFD's it is a compliment for Knowledge and her growth. In their desperation to keep this SPAM, non-NPOV advertisement on Knowledge these new and senior editors should not become the target of a professional, paid, discredit campaign against them by Ronn Torossian and his employees of 5W Public Relations. We must ask ourselves one question. Has Knowledge become a Yellow Pages for which PR CEO's and their firms may arrogantly promote themselves in their own words and then use spin tactics to retain the article or is the Knowledge community responsible for improving the standards of quality information based on objective and accountable fact?
1356:. Does this mean that every PR and SEO pro who has optimized their name on the Net, who reaches hundreds of media outlets every day for themselves and their clients are now notable? If so, we will need to enter not hundreds but rather thousands of PR CEO's into Knowledge from New York to Hong Kong. Remember, the job of a public relations firm is to make themselves and their clients notable. Perhaps their clients may qualify after the PR firm has created a Website, Facebook, MySpace and blogging entries. Perhaps after they have been written about on AP and Reuters on a daily if not weekly basis. But to allow PR firms to
682:
why, whereas me being upfront about it by the very fact of it, makes me adhere to more strict guideline and opens me to scrutiny - which is warranted, and leads to a better article in the process. I think that for someone to so obviously look to challenge Mr. Torossian’s veracity on
Knowledge, he or she would be better off appearing as a true concerned Wiki community member rather than a meatpuppet for one of Torossian’s rivals. --
668:- Not offering an opinion one way or another, I'm sure most of these editors here already know where I stand. That said, when I posted the piece, it was done as a post of a notable person, even if I do work for him. Never once did I hide it or run from it, as my user page clearly identifies who I am. What I find most interesting here is that users such as
240:
like intrinsic worth? But that would disqualify articles on tens of thousands of people, from on down.) If
Torossian (the man, not the article) is veracity-challenged, well, so are many people who get articles. If promotional ("COI") editing is going on, that can be dealt with. (Meanwhile, I hadn't heard that the
677:
that I just know about and even enjoy, and occasionally on things I know more intimately. IMO, this person we are talking about is notable - and long before I started working at the firm. I disagree with anyone who believes that one with any level of interest may not contribute to an article. An example is the
1175:
Don't hold your breath, you might just hurt yourself. Here is just one example: 00:46, 29 October 2007 Judae1 (Talk | contribs) (19,269 bytes) (→External links - Francis is absolutely not Jewish) 5W Public
Relations is a documented spammer which ignores NPOV policy on Knowledge authoring its own and
446:
establishes notability (notoriety?). But if, as has been the case in the past, editors will constantly be purging the source from the article, it is rendered spamvertisement, and has no place on
Knowledge. In order for me to flip to keep, the article would need to be completely re-written, using the
348:
Are you saying that nobody in the PR racket is notable, or are you saying that
Torossian isn't notable within this racket? If the latter, what are your criteria of notability? And where is the clear documentation that this article was "written by Torossian and his staff"? Incidentally, the last time
681:
page, created way before my term there, but contained errors and missing facts as to the organization's history. I made some changes - not to sell anyone on the agency, but to correct what was wrong. I find it disingenuous for people to make these kinds of edits without revealing who they are and
416:
I do not really care whether this article is deleted or not, but I do not agree with your delete reasoning at all. Are you asking that this article be deleted just on a technicality (i.e. you agree that there is a source that satisfies notability but you say that the source was not mentioned in the
1265:
by 3 uninvolved users, 2 of whom have abstained from giving an opinion and one has opined that the article be merged. Please stop making these allegations about "Torossian & Co". (And funnily enough, if you claim that the NY post article is significant enough that it should be mentioned in the
1224:
that one needs only to match just a few of the users who voted Keep here with the client list of 5W Public
Relations which is listed on Knowledge as adverts. It is a sad sham. Also transparent spin tactics used by the employees of 5W Public Relations to attempt to divert attention and attack those
741:
Not notable. He is mentioned in passing in any of the reliable "sources." The article is an abuse of
Knowledge. It is mainly edited by Juda, his employee (which is scummy on its own). Juda knows he has a COI yet he edits the page. This whole thing reeks of an abuse of Knowledge. Juda and Torrosian
676:
have been on
Knowledge for a whole of two days now, existing solely to defeat this article. Knowledge is a community of editors and admins, most of who are genuinely good people just trying to provide information to the public. I have started many articles and contributed to a lot more on things
305:
Clearly an advert and notability is not established. But of even greater consequence, whether
Torossian appeared in the New York Times or Businessweek is irrelevant, as it is clearly documented that this article was written by Torossian and his staff which equals a complete and total lack of NPOV.
1379:
standard. Even the New York Post article cited as reason for deletion is further evidence of notability. I'd strongly suggest reading the article in question and providing an explanation for why the sources provided are invalid, instead of a knee jerk rejection of notability based on a particular
239:
article. It's devoted to this person (of whom I hadn't previously heard), and indeed makes him seem at least moderately remarkable (though not pleasantly so). I'd thought that this article and its content would be evidence of considerable notability. What more notability do you demand? (Something
759:
Mentioned in passing? A 4 page article in the New York Times and an article in
Business Week? This article has to stand on notability and verifiability issues only. Its is notable from the articles in the New York Times, and Business Week, and almost every sentence is linked to a source, this is
1374:
First of all, no one has argued that the article's subject is notable simply because of his profession or title. While you have a legitimate argument that not every PR CEO deserves an article, this particular article provides multiple reliable and verifiable articles from independent sources to
358:
Whether one likes or dislikes Torossian, Knowledge clearly states that one cannot write their own bio! There must be NPOV or neutral point of view employed at Knowledge. Just go to the history section of the Torossian article and see for yourself who created this puff piece - a paid employee of
372:
And indeed Judae1 does seem to have created it, and yes, Judae1 says in his user page that he's in Torossian's outfit. However, Judae1 hasn't touched the article in four months. Are you saying that other Torossian puppets have controlled it since then? And what are you saying about Torossian's
134:
Another example is the recent repeated deletion of a New York Post article on Torossian which reflects negatively on Torossian which has been deleted by those who created the article in the first place. Knowledge is an encyclopedia, not a news outlet for Torossian and his news releases. Within
1293:
Staying focused = Torossian wrote this article and has his employees voting Keep on it. Knowledge is not PR Newswire. Knowledge is an encyclopedia which illustrates those who have truly earned nobility. Torossian lacks this status even with the dozens of news releases he issues about himself.
577:
The leaders of every business are notable, and for advertisers, PR people and so on, this is to some extent a matter of notable clients. KP Botany is no longer around here--very unfortunately for the encyclopedia--to defend the article she started, but she showed here her usual good judgment.
126:
Ronn Torossian lacks nobility. Torossian is no different from thousands of other PR spin doctors and SEO professionals who abuse Knowledge for their own and their client's promotional purposes. The Torossian article totally lacks NPOV as it has been manufactured by Torossian and his staff of
1138:
and several others. Just connect many of the users on this page who have voted Keep and their history of "contributions." These "contributions" match clients listed on 5W Public Relations client page. 5W Public Relations is an established and documented spammer on Knowledge.
491:" I did revert one edit, for reasons mentioned in the edit summary which has nothing to do with how it portrays the subject. I personally am indifferent to whether this article is kept or deleted and I had nothing to do with this article except for that one reversion. -
782:. "Juda"? Never heard of him. Does AN mean Judae1? He does indeed claim to be within this company, but he hasn't touched the article in four months. Is AN saying that other Torossian puppets have controlled it since then, or that Judae1 has socks, or what? --
924:
I have never before seen a nomination that does a better job of establishing notability than this one. The article -- and the nomination -- provides ample reliable and verifiable sources that cover the article subject in depth, all of which satisfy the
852:
Lacks nobility and NPOV. Article was authored by paid employee of Ronn Torossian. Do not merge into 5W Public Relations for that article was also authored by same paid employee. Knowledge is not a dumpster for SPAM and self-serving egos.
403:- While the Business Week article does establish notability, its absence from the Wiki article prevents the Wiki article from asserting that notability, leaving it vanispamcruftisement. Serious COI problems with the authorship. -
135:
Knowledge, notability is an article inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity".
724:, assuming that the later is kept. I don't see one being all that notable without the other. Note: both the author of this page and the nominator for deletion have been warned for edit-warring and COI problems.
1043:. Article establishes notability with strong sources both in the mainstream media and publications within his professional field. If the article is overly promotional, then simply edit it so it is NPOV.
489:
Another example is the recent repeated deletion of a New York Post article on Torossian which reflects negatively on Torossian which has been deleted by those who created the article in the first place.
703:(because I'm not volunteering to work on this article or help clean it up, and I agree cleanup is needed), but seems to me like there are sources to establish notability and provide material. --
1360:
Knowledge (and even admit that is what they are doing) in their mission to create one as notable, is defeating the mission and goals of Knowledge to provide objective information to the world.
119:
1161:
specify which five these are and explain what their histories show. Also, show us the proof that this outfit has been paid to write articles. We're all holding our breath! --
1308:
It ultimately doesn't really matter if the guy started an article on himself, if it can be decided that he is notable. So, staying focused = determining the no
1084:
1025:
955:
765:
223:
on the other hand have both taken a particular interest on Torossian's biography. I have no opinion on the person's notability, so I won't vote.--
1233:
committed by Torossian and his paid employees. Lastly, please note how Torossian & Co. continue to delete any mention on this article of the
334:
The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single purpose account whose only edits are directly related to this article and an associated AfD.
182:
The nominator of this AfD appears to be a single purpose account whose only edits are directly related to this article and an associated AfD.
1353:. That is the business of Ronn Torossian and thousands of other PR CEO's! One only needs to view O'Dwyer's Guide to Public Relations Firms
1255:
The material that was added from NY post earlier was not fit to be in the article because of the reasons mentioned in the edit summaries
211:: The users (including myself) who deleted the NY Post news piece had not edited the wikipedia article before, as is clear by the item's
1080:
1021:
951:
761:
546:
132:
1349:
Twooars, you have an excellent point. One may be notable even if they do write their own article. Not exactly NPOV. But let's examine
1190:
Boring! Come on, Agavtouch: we knew about Judae1, who has been upfront about his activities both on his user page and here. You wrote
92:
87:
778:"Sickening"? Mmm, the last time I checked my shirt and trousers, they were free of traces of vomit. The article is, Agha Nader says,
1319:
96:
447:
BW article as a main source for much of the article. I have no confidence in that ever happening, so it should just be deleted. -
881:
654:
329:
177:
806:
669:
650:
325:
216:
173:
154:
79:
17:
391:
Notable enough (in an unpleasant way). The fluff can easily be deleted, and balanced with the stuff that has been airbrushed.
256:. I don't understand why this was nominated, as the nominator him/herself has provided a source which establishes notability.
877:
1157:: Thanks but no, I'm too busy/lazy. "Many" is vague, but surely means more than ten; let's halve that and call it five, and
903:. I'll leave it to the reader to draw conclusions. I don't think that the subject's lack of nobility is in much doubt here.
1134:
policy on this article, 5W Public Relations has been paid to author and has spammed other articles in Knowledge including:
673:
220:
1337:
1281:
506:
432:
306:
This article should have gone for "Speedy Delete" as it spits in the face of every user who edits and reads Knowledge.
1197:(my emphasis). Judae1 aside, who are they? And where's the proof that this outfit has been paid to write articles? --
131:
Another illustration of this fact is the false listing of McDonald's as a client. Please see Businessweek article.
1237:
news story illustrating malice and bad faith created by Torossian against the NYC PR industry. Not very objective.
138:
The Torossian article includes blatant advertising and self promotion which is transparent to anyone who reads it.
1416:
1079:
Should Knowledge bow down to aggressive anonymous trolls disrupting writing because they have an axe to grind? --
475:
36:
1238:
470:- Any actual encyclopedic information can be merged into the article on the public relations company itself. --
1415:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
678:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1389:
1369:
1342:
1303:
1286:
1248:
1206:
1185:
1170:
1148:
1112:
1088:
1071:
1054:
1029:
1003:
982:
959:
938:
912:
862:
844:
826:
791:
769:
751:
733:
712:
691:
635:
623:
601:
589:
569:
549:
535:
511:
479:
456:
437:
407:
395:
377:
367:
353:
343:
310:
293:
280:
268:
248:
227:
203:
191:
61:
908:
729:
742:
work at a PR firm. They are doing it for publicity for their publicity firm. The irony is sickening.--
289:
But the BW article is not in the Wiki article, so the wiki article does not assert that notability. -
1376:
973:
This AFD could not be more solid that this article was written by Ronn Torossian for Ronn Torossian.
926:
747:
516:
Specifically, I, Atavi, was unsure whether this passage should be included in the article, and asked
471:
142:
598:
1299:
1244:
1181:
1144:
835:
721:
646:
558:
452:
321:
169:
150:
83:
57:
49:
1385:
1365:
1108:
1067:
1049:
978:
934:
873:
858:
839:
339:
187:
950:, the AFD was started by an account created just for this deletion, and the company article. --
1330:
1274:
1017:
904:
725:
708:
524:
499:
425:
265:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
687:
1202:
1166:
999:
822:
787:
743:
565:
to that, as there's little or nothing about this person that isn't about his company. --
1295:
1240:
1221:
1177:
1140:
802:
642:
632:
618:
448:
404:
364:
317:
307:
290:
165:
146:
75:
67:
53:
349:
I checked my face, it was free of Mr Torossian's spittle, or indeed anyone else's. --
1381:
1361:
1104:
1100:
1063:
1044:
1013:
974:
947:
930:
869:
854:
585:
335:
261:
257:
183:
631:
This is a clear violation of Knowledge's policy of NPOV and abusive self promotion.
1323:
1267:
760:
becoming a vote on if you like the guy, that is no way to edit an encyclopedia. --
704:
517:
492:
418:
392:
277:
200:
113:
1103:. Feel free to respond, or have one of your sockpuppets handle this one for you.
817:
is Juda S. Engelmayer. I will refrain from any other comment on the discussion.--
1135:
994:: I might be interested in this "fact" if I could only parse its expression. --
814:
683:
360:
128:
1198:
1162:
995:
818:
810:
783:
566:
532:
374:
350:
245:
224:
895:. It seems a bit strange to me that both the nominator and Batright refer to
1314:
1099:
Agavtouch, let's hear why a response to one of your sockpuppets violates
580:
1225:
who have voted delete from the many gross and documented violations of
531:
in IRC for their opinion, and after discussion they deleted the item.--
809:, noting dates and contents. Next, I would like to kindly indicate to
244:
was something usable as a source for an encyclopedia article.) --
1409:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1357:
1350:
1230:
1226:
1131:
1123:
1127:
1093:
1020:
points out has the same spelling errors as the nominator. --
199:
Clearly an advert and notability isn't really established.
1354:
1318:, which is a different thing altogether. Knowledge is not
838:. The notability is of the company, not the individual. —
1262:
1259:
1256:
212:
109:
105:
101:
264:
issues should be dealt with by editing, not deletion.
616:
notable for i.e. being a self-promoting spin doctor.
801:
First of all I would like to call your attention to
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
48:Whether or not the article should be merged with
1419:). No further edits should be made to this page.
233:Questions and comments, mostly for the nominator
417:article, so the article should be deleted)? -
1322:to insist on the nobility of the subject). -
8:
127:sockpuppets and meatpuppets. Vivid i.e. -
1016:. It has less than a dozen edits. And as
1263:again a copyvio and unencyclopedic tone
7:
612:the article should focus on what he
442:Allow me to clarify. The BW article
52:is a matter of editorial consensus.
780:mainly edited by Juda, his employee
24:
1380:animus to the article's subject.
235:. The nominator asks us to see a
1320:Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage
1260:copyvio and unencyclopedic tone
1092:* This user is in violation of
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1155:Just connect many of the users
1081:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1022:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1012:Ditto for the account used by
952:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
762:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
547:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
1390:22:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1370:22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1343:19:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1312:bility of Torossian (and not
1304:18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1287:18:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1249:17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
1207:15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1186:14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1171:14:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1149:13:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1113:13:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1089:01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1072:00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1055:21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1030:22:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
1004:01:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
983:21:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
960:18:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
944:Comment: Bad faith nomination
939:17:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
913:18:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
863:14:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
845:01:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
827:09:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
792:04:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
770:21:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
752:04:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
734:23:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
713:19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
692:16:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
636:12:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
624:09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
602:02:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
590:01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
570:20:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
550:20:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
536:18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
512:18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
480:16:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
457:16:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
438:18:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
408:15:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
396:13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
378:14:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
368:13:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
354:13:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
344:18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
311:13:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
294:15:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
281:13:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
269:11:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
249:10:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
228:10:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
204:09:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
192:18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
62:07:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
1153:Stirring stuff, Agavtouch!
1122:: In addition to violating
1436:
545:Verifiable and notable. --
276:per BusinessWeek article.
1195:of the users on this page
1412:Please do not modify it.
679:American Jewish Congress
32:Please do not modify it.
882:few or no other edits
850:Delete - Do Not Merge
655:few or no other edits
330:few or no other edits
178:few or no other edits
1377:Knowledge:Notability
1050:Angry Mastodon! Run!
927:Knowledge:Notability
884:outside this topic.
657:outside this topic.
332:outside this topic.
180:outside this topic.
1176:client's articles.
836:5W Public Relations
722:5W Public Relations
559:5W Public Relations
50:5W Public Relations
946:as pointed out by
832:Merge and redirect
718:Merge and redirect
684:Juda S. Engelmayer
1340:
1284:
1053:
885:
658:
509:
435:
333:
181:
159:
145:comment added by
1427:
1414:
1338:
1335:
1328:
1282:
1279:
1272:
1047:
867:
640:
529:
522:
507:
504:
497:
433:
430:
423:
315:
163:
158:
139:
117:
99:
34:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1417:deletion review
1410:
1331:
1324:
1275:
1268:
525:
518:
500:
493:
485:A clarification
472:DropDeadGorgias
426:
419:
373:notability? --
140:
90:
74:
71:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1433:
1431:
1422:
1421:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1252:
1251:
1235:New York Post
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1074:
1057:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
986:
985:
963:
962:
941:
918:
917:
916:
915:
887:
886:
865:
847:
829:
796:
795:
794:
773:
772:
754:
736:
715:
697:
696:
695:
694:
660:
659:
638:
626:
604:
592:
572:
552:
540:
539:
538:
487:The nom says "
482:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
411:
410:
398:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
313:
299:
298:
297:
296:
284:
283:
271:
251:
230:
206:
194:
124:
123:
76:Ronn Torossian
70:
68:Ronn Torossian
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1432:
1420:
1418:
1413:
1407:
1406:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1341:
1336:
1334:
1329:
1327:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1280:
1278:
1273:
1271:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1220:I agree with
1219:
1216:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1194:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1075:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:User:Batright
1011:
1010:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
990:
989:
988:
987:
984:
980:
976:
972:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
961:
957:
953:
949:
948:User:Alansohn
945:
942:
940:
936:
932:
928:
923:
920:
919:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
891:
890:
889:
888:
883:
879:
875:
871:
866:
864:
860:
856:
851:
848:
846:
843:
842:
837:
833:
830:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
776:
775:
774:
771:
767:
763:
758:
755:
753:
749:
745:
740:
737:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
716:
714:
710:
706:
702:
699:
698:
693:
689:
685:
680:
675:
671:
667:
664:
663:
662:
661:
656:
652:
648:
644:
639:
637:
634:
630:
627:
625:
621:
620:
615:
611:
608:
605:
603:
600:
596:
593:
591:
587:
583:
582:
576:
573:
571:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
551:
548:
544:
541:
537:
534:
530:
528:
523:
521:
515:
514:
513:
510:
505:
503:
498:
496:
490:
486:
483:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
465:
458:
454:
450:
445:
441:
440:
439:
436:
431:
429:
424:
422:
415:
414:
413:
412:
409:
406:
402:
399:
397:
394:
390:
389:Keep and Stub
387:
379:
376:
371:
370:
369:
366:
362:
357:
356:
355:
352:
347:
346:
345:
341:
337:
331:
327:
323:
319:
314:
312:
309:
304:
303:Strong Delete
301:
300:
295:
292:
288:
287:
286:
285:
282:
279:
275:
272:
270:
267:
263:
259:
255:
252:
250:
247:
243:
242:New York Post
238:
234:
231:
229:
226:
222:
218:
214:
210:
207:
205:
202:
198:
195:
193:
189:
185:
179:
175:
171:
167:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
136:
133:
130:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1411:
1408:
1375:satisfy the
1332:
1325:
1313:
1309:
1276:
1269:
1234:
1217:
1192:
1191:
1158:
1154:
1119:
1091:
1076:
1059:
1040:
1018:Phil Bridger
992:Bewilderment
991:
970:
943:
921:
905:Phil Bridger
900:
899:rather than
896:
892:
849:
840:
831:
807:contibutions
798:
779:
756:
738:
726:Michaelbusch
717:
700:
665:
628:
617:
613:
609:
606:
594:
579:
574:
562:
554:
542:
526:
519:
501:
494:
488:
484:
467:
443:
427:
420:
400:
388:
359:Torossian -
302:
273:
266:Phil Bridger
253:
241:
237:Businessweek
236:
232:
208:
196:
141:— Preceding
137:
125:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1136:Joe Francis
922:Strong Keep
880:) has made
815:User:Judae1
653:) has made
361:User:Judae1
328:) has made
176:) has made
129:User:Judae1
929:standard.
901:notability
744:Agha Nader
1296:Heathspic
1257:no source
1241:Heathspic
1222:Agavtouch
1178:Agavtouch
1141:Agavtouch
803:Heathspic
670:Agavtouch
643:Heathspic
633:Heathspic
619:Handschuh
599:RubenKlor
449:Crockspot
405:Crockspot
365:Agavtouch
318:Agavtouch
308:Agavtouch
291:Crockspot
217:Agavtouch
166:Agavtouch
147:Agavtouch
54:Sandstein
1382:Alansohn
1362:Batright
1315:nobility
1105:Alansohn
1064:Batright
1045:Gamaliel
975:Batright
931:Alansohn
897:nobility
878:contribs
870:Batright
855:Batright
841:Moondyne
799:Comments
651:contribs
563:redirect
336:Alansohn
326:contribs
184:Alansohn
174:contribs
155:contribs
143:unsigned
120:View log
1218:Comment
1120:Comment
1077:Comment
1060:Comment
893:Comment
757:Comment
705:Kingdon
701:Abstain
674:Zonenet
666:Comment
393:Mayalld
278:Epbr123
221:Zonenet
213:history
209:Comment
201:Alberon
93:protect
88:history
1101:WP:3RR
739:Delete
629:Delete
468:Delete
444:barely
401:Delete
262:WP:COI
258:WP:POV
197:Delete
97:delete
1339:(Rev)
1283:(Rev)
1199:Hoary
1163:Hoary
996:Hoary
819:Atavi
813:that
811:Hoary
784:Hoary
720:with
567:Hoary
557:with
555:Merge
533:Atavi
508:(Rev)
434:(Rev)
375:Hoary
351:Hoary
246:Hoary
225:Atavi
114:views
106:watch
102:links
46:keep.
16:<
1386:talk
1366:talk
1358:SPAM
1351:SPAM
1333:Oars
1300:talk
1277:Oars
1245:talk
1231:NPOV
1229:and
1227:SPAM
1203:talk
1193:many
1182:talk
1167:talk
1145:talk
1132:NPOV
1130:and
1124:SPAM
1109:talk
1085:talk
1068:talk
1041:Keep
1026:talk
1000:talk
979:talk
971:Fact
956:talk
935:talk
909:talk
874:talk
859:talk
823:talk
788:talk
766:talk
748:talk
730:talk
709:talk
688:talk
672:and
647:talk
607:Keep
595:Keep
586:talk
575:Keep
561:and
543:Keep
527:Oars
502:Oars
476:talk
453:talk
428:Oars
340:talk
322:talk
274:Keep
260:and
254:Keep
219:and
188:talk
170:talk
151:talk
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
1326:Two
1270:Two
1159:you
1128:3RR
1094:3RR
834:to
805:'s
610:but
581:DGG
520:Two
495:Two
421:Two
118:– (
1388:)
1368:)
1310:ta
1302:)
1247:)
1205:)
1184:)
1169:)
1147:)
1126:,
1111:)
1087:)
1070:)
1028:)
1002:)
981:)
958:)
937:)
911:)
876:•
868:—
861:)
825:)
790:)
768:)
750:)
732:)
711:)
690:)
649:•
641:—
622:-
614:is
588:)
478:)
455:)
363:.
342:)
324:•
316:—
215:.
190:)
172:•
164:—
157:)
153:•
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1384:(
1364:(
1298:(
1243:(
1201:(
1180:(
1165:(
1143:(
1107:(
1083:(
1066:(
1052:)
1048:(
1024:(
998:(
977:(
954:(
933:(
907:(
872:(
857:(
821:(
786:(
764:(
746:(
728:(
707:(
686:(
645:(
584:(
474:(
451:(
338:(
320:(
186:(
168:(
149:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.