Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination)

2564:. It says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." The section you quote about not requiring sources says "it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be." I think it's clear we can't readily establish notability, or it would have been done. So it fails 2623:, and frankly, I'm surprised that it has survived as long as it has in the deletion-heavy atmosphere of Knowledge. And you're wrong about cities. Going through the cities category, I wasn't able to find anything that didn't assert notability. I found cities with references to historical works, books on the city, tourism guides, and specials on the cities that had happened on the local news. All reliable sources, all verifiable, all objective, unlike what we have here. Here we don't have anything. 1234:: I'm too much of an inclusionist to vote "delete" on this, but there is some hypocrisy in that some of the same people who are insisting on a really high standard of notability for ED are voting to keep this one despite a lack of coverage outside our own little wiki-universe. And people are condemning the repeated attempts at deletion here when both sides of the ED debate have practiced the "When at first you don't succeed, try try again" strategy whenever their side lost the last round. 1527:

try again until by chance the atmosphere is right. Lets say there's a 10% error rate each way at AfD in making the correct decision. Obviously, if you keep at the articler enough, theodds will be overwhelming that you'll succeed once--and once is enough. Like shooting at a target till you eventually chance to hit. You may miss 90% of the time, but eventually you'll get there no matter how inaccurate. Not that consensus has changed, or your skill has improved.

2379:, which is core policy, is what demands nontrivial secondary source coverage. A lack of sources can and should override every argument of notability. Furthermore, this is not "currently does not cite"; this is not an article where limits of time or space mean that many citations are currently hard to find; Knowledge editors have read literally every word ever published in reliable sources on the subject. If it ain't here, it probably doesn't exist.-- 3292:. I'm really just not satisfied with the sourcing, and I very rarely say that. It just doesn't stand up to our general notability standards, though it may have (marginally) done so several months back when these standards were a bit more lenient. I think the procedural concerns raised by DGG and others are valid, but not that compelling in this case as the time gap (which I think is more important than the raw number of nominations) was substantial. 1732:, and that guideline instructs closing admins to discount !votes contrary to Knowledge standards, logic or the facts. Do we follow the notability guidelines or not? Do we have a single standard for both the articles/subjects we like and the one's we don't? Anyone voting differently here than at the Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD should really think about explaining the difference, because there's a rotton stench of hypocrisy in the air (there 77:- "Fails WP:WEB" is a much stronger argument than "passes WP:ILIKEIT" and "passes WP:BADFAITHNOM". A few offhand mentions are generally not held as sufficient coverage. Small bits of content might be added to appropriate articles "Criticism of Knowledge" or such - ask me and I'll provide you with it if you're not an admin. Offsite canvassing is troubling to number-counting, but the arguments stand on their own. 103: 31: 2691:(Ingersoll being surprisingly historic due to its tile elevator). It would be highly unlikely that, out of all of the towns in the world, there aren't a significant number that have little to no substantive third party coverage of them (not that the actual existence of such a town matters - a thought experiment would suffice). But now we are getting way off topic... 3298:. This is another example of an article that has existed for a long time despite failing to meet normal notability requirements merely because it is associated with a prominent Wikipedian. It's remarkable how things more notable than Wikinfo are often deleted despite having received substantial media attention, but people turn up to defend something like this. 2705:

Ingersoll is not historic due to its tile elevator; just about every place has something. It's probably more historic for nearly being the capital of Cherokee County and descending from a population of around 1000 to 18. Moreover, part of what I missed with taking an unincorporated city is stuff like

2468:

The exception is about more than just the potential existence of sources, it is about subjects that may be notable even if there are no sources about them. For example, we recognize that colleges, cities, airports, and the like are notable even if they are not covered in secondary sources. Similarly,

1736:

be reasons for voting differently -- for instance, there are more sources cited there than here -- but if you don't explain them, it looks like hypocrisy). The information can be moved into Knowledge space, as Ned Scott suggested above (timestamp 04:44, 16 May), which is where non-notable subjects of

1582:

Wikinfo shows up with 91,000 google hits. Encyclopedia Dramatica shows up with 146,000 google hits. How many Google hits exactly defines "notable"? Keep it. Besides which, its philosophy lays right alongside Wikpedia with that single, particular difference, "sympathetic point of view", making an

1558:

I *AM* convinced. DGG lays out perfectly the Deletionist tactic of "trial until guilty." This is an obvious tactic to reduce content on Knowledge regardless of how many times the attempt has failed to generate consensus. If the article has been degraded in any way, the Deletionists here should please

1251:

Wikinfo is a notable growing community with a unique set of policies including Sympathetic Point of View and the ability to write Signed Articles (which are labeled as such) and the ability to grow articles that are stubs without repeated deletion attempts (not pointing any fingers here, but...) More

3257:

It doesn't assert notability now. It never has. It never can with the current coverage, because there's just not enough sources available for it. If you can show me two pieces of non-trivial independent coverage about the subject, I'll withdraw the nomination right now. That would mean that the

2180:

It's been defined here as "a brief summary of the nature of the content". A sentence or two, basically, that just rehashes what Wikinfo is (or says it is, more often). That's trivial content, since we couldn't form a useful article with that. People have mentioned Conservapedia... I recall hearing a

1840:

As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Knowledge) explains: "A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Knowledge has become the 'AOL' of the library and reference world, such false information and incorrect definitions of terms

1405:

folks engaged in the same sort of off-wiki, undisclosed canvassing for the ED AfD, would you consider it appropriate? Presumably not. Wikinfo may have more noble aspirations, but it's only reasonable to expect partiality from Wikinfo editors participating in this AfD. Perhaps the canvassing was done

1397:

I'm all for "leaving it to the experts" where appropriate, but I'm not really convinced that general en-wp editors are unqualified to judge this without assistance. It's the same software (well, a fork with minimal differences), most of the relevant info (sources, wiki stats, etc.) is trivially easy

1379:

and not assume that those who are coming to this page aren't also regular, longtime WP editors as well, as I am. Not that others don't heve every right ot be here and speak out, too. Believe me, some of these Wikinfo editors know very well what goes on here and what the policies are. (And that's why

1374:

Point one: I hope no one ever edits about things they know about. That would be rather "impartial" wouldn't it? (sarcasm) For the record, I've never edited this article. Secondly about canvasing, you're kidding, right? How did YOU discover this page - was Wikinfo on your watchlist already? Doubtful.

2686:

Hundreds of thousands of autogenerated trivial searchspam pages for all registered city names ("weather for city X", "chiropracters within 20 miles of X", etc) are making it difficult for me to conclusively disprove your statement, but suffice it to say that most small towns of less than 100 people

2275:

You are making the (incorrect) assumption that the community is not allowed to change its mind about an article. In addition, several of the debates took place some time ago (and the notability criteria have probably changed since then) and not all the discussions were even closed as a consensus to

1526:

abusive nomination. Previous history: 2 keeps, a non-consensus, the another 2 keeps. There should be a clear policy against eve doing this. the present situation is asymmetrical--after a single delete it cant be recreated without deletion review, but after any number of keeps anyone can just go and

630:

How is this abusive? Someone pointed out an article to me that was poorly cited. I nominated it for AfD. It's been more than a few months. It has nothing to do with the ED article (which I think is much better sourced and should be speedily kept). And I've never participated in a discussion on

356:

article might make you think otherwise. There is a wiki called MeatBall which covers the "meta" subjects for c2.com's WikiWiki. Similarly, this article might be useful to some wiki (Meta?) which exists to preserve Knowledge's history and famous debates and so forth. However, as a subject in its own

2264:

Can someone who is asking for the deletion of this article please explain how it's gotten WORSE since the last five attempts to delete it? If nothing's changed, were a majority of the participants of the past AfD's simply ignorant, stupid or duped? Or, if we are to assume good faith (as we should)

2238:

despite several previous AfDs and plenty of time we still do not have multiple non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. As many people here are interested in writing articles about wikis (for obvious reasons) what coverage that has been presented is probably the result of an extremely

2195:

To me 3 sentences constitute trivial coverage. If 3 sentences or even a minor paragraph in 2 reliable sources was enough even I would be notable as would a lot of other people whose name has appeared in the local newspapers at some point in their life. It takes more than that, it needs to actually

1567:

it has changed for the worst since the last 5 deletion attempts. If ANY improvements have been made, then the case for deletion is EVEN WEAKER than before, and it's even MORE insulated from deletion than in the past. IMO, the actually argument grows even weaker with each passing attempt. Unless of

1543:

I am unconvinced that the mere number of AfDs or DRVs is sufficient to keep or delete any article or protect that article from further such discussions. Multiple such discussions in an unreasonable period of time is certainly a problem. The most recent AfD for this article was many months ago so

1349:

This is a rather disappointing bit of off-wiki canvassing. Users actively involved with a project really can't be expected to evaluate an AfD concerning that project impartially; that's only realistic. Canvassing isn't likely to change the outcome of the debate, as our admins are competent enough,

828:

The German ref does contain a paragraph about Wikinfo and NPOV but it doesn't constitute non-trivial coverage. The first ref barely mentions Wikinfo (only says it's a fork followed by a quote from Wikinfo about Knowledge). Even if we assume that the German source is non-trivial coverage we are one

2981:

only mention of wikinfo is "As Wikinfo (a fork, or spin-off, from Knowledge) explains: "A wiki with so many hundreds of thousands of pages is bound to get some things wrong. The problem is, that because Knowledge has become the 'AOL' of the library and reference world, such false information and

1488:

I note with some amusement that the 2nd nomination for deletion of Wikinfo's article here "seems to have been initiated by a vandal's sockpuppet" according to the person who nonetheless took up the baton on that deletion attempt, and the 4th nomination for deletion started with the bold statement

2181:

5-10 minute piece on NPR about Conservapedia, which included extensive discussion about the validity of its viewpoint on the history of the US Democratic Party, contrasted with Knowledge's. To me that is an example of non-trivial coverage. I just haven't seen that kind of coverage for Wikinfo. --

1393:

makes the distinction clear -- AfDs generally don't have prejudicial audiences, while Wikinfo does (in the context of an AfD for Wikinfo, that is). This is why transcluding an AfD on the daily list of AfDs isn't considered inappropriate canvassing. It is also inappropriate, according to the same

814:

You are of course aware then that that second source you refer to refers to wikiinfo once, in passing. Seems pretty trivial to me. You can also hardly use the german language source as notability - because you and i don't know what it says. (hell there is not guarantee it is even about wikiinfo)

3238:

was positively bizarre). I apologize, Celarnor. As for your other remark, it's true that consensus can change, but for that argument to make sense, one would need to demonstrate what's different. The arguments being made by the deleters here are that the article isn't notable, not that it is

1811:

Inclusion of this AfD on a "Wikiproject:Deletions" page is Canvasing by another name, although the effect of posting it on that page - and others - is "come delete stuff" rather than the "come save stuff" that is more likely through individual invitations or postings on articles and wikis with

3206:

As for the reasoning, I gave it quite clearly. It's been decided four other times that it's notable. Repeatedly calling AfDs on articles that repeatedly pass AfDs is a waste of time and energy, and seems to fly in the face of consensus. The consensus is already that the article is worth of

3145:. This has gone through AfD five times previously, and the result has been keep four times out of five (with the fifth time being no consensus -- and that wasn't even the last nomination). Note also that this appears to be part of a batch of nominations from the nominator, some of which seem 678:

I find it extraordinarily disengenuous to claim that 500,000 Google hits are meaningless. It shows more a POV-pushing then a real intent to discover the facts in this case. Are you actually claiming that wikipedia has a half-million clones spewing meaningless copy pages? If we even had 10,000

2542:

As for the "inherent notability" wording, I was not referring to that essay or the arguments contained therein (I didn't even know that the essay existed until now). My point was that 1) WP:N intentionally states that things may be notable even if there are no sources, and 2) this notability

1877:

Well, the Telepolis article has a paragraph about Wikinfo, as does the extended version of the Forschung & Lehre article (I don't have access to the published version, so I don't know what that has). I think those do (barely) qualify as non-trivial, and the sources appear to be reliable

679:

bloggers mentioning wikinfo it has far surpassed the necessary bar to keep here. Just the fact alone that there are a half-million pages, makes it significant in terms of googlespansion if nothing else, and that's all we need. (post origionally by Wjhonson 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC))

2265:

were the previous participants just convinced that this article had merit as a description of a fork of Knowledge with significantly different and unique policies that deserves mention in a supposedly all-encompassing encyclopedia? Or does WP no longer aspire to be such a place?) -

1489:"Note I have a bit of an anti-Wikinfo bias, because I have been vicously trolled and harassed by Fred Bauder, the admin of the site." Why this was allowed to get to a 6th deletion attempt is beyond me, given the outright bias presented in previous attempts, which often amounted to 944:

I have no strong opinion about this article, but in the event it is determined to not be appropriate for the article namespace, I would like to request that it be moved to the project namespace rather than just be deleted. It might be similar to a page move I did a while back for

1723:

requires multiple sources that are not trivial in amount of coverage. There are three independent sources of potentially non-trivial information cited at this article. One of them is behind a $ 10 subscription wall. The other two meet the WP:WEB description of trivial amount:

1812:

similiar interests. There is simply no difference. If one is illegitimate, than so is the other (although the deletionists probably have created a few clever essays to justify these 'projects,' which I find contrary to a positive article-creating encyclopedic experience.)-

2714:

and like publications are not web-accessible, but have a huge amount of information on these cities. A thought experiment doesn't suffice; we're claiming we keep cities because they always have sources. If you can't find one without those sources, then it's a pretty solid

682:

A fork of a very well known project can be notable if t here are sources to show it's well known, and there are. Just barely, but sufficient. Paid sources are acceptable. Paid external links, no, but as sources, sure. (Post originally by DGG (talk) 09:56, 3 September 2007

2571:

There's no such thing as a real college, city or airport that doesn't have sources. There are bureaucracies surrounding the creation of sources for these things. We delete articles on neighborhoods all the time, because they don't have the same types of sources as

437:

No, I like it would be a complete misreading of my comment, I am talking about its educational value and worth tot he encyclopedia, my personal view is that its a subject that does not particularly interest me but my own view is, as you say, not relevant. Thanks,

2429:

Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criteria are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could

1375:

In every single AfD I've ever participated in, I've seen a HUGE amount of canvassing, largely from Admins, and in fact, this page is listed on at least TWO lists of active AfDs, directing people, in effect, to go and delete this article. Thirdly, you should

1060:(a) Fair enough, changed to strong keep. (b) Consensus is unlikely to change after five AfDs. I do try to assume good faith, but it's difficult to do so with a sixth AfD that gives no new reasons for deletion. As for sources, the article already has them. 3000:"and even in some encyclopedia projects such as for instance Wikinfo which precisely encourages diverse points of views for a same article." The other article TheNautilus mentioned we can't view. So this is the depth and number of sources for the subject. 1439:

the subject, rather than mere passing mentions. Does not meet notability standards. I am disappointed by the canvassing that that has been shown to have taken place regarding this discussion, which I hope the closing admin will take into account.

699:

The first one of those claims WEB doesn't apply, but it still has to be notable somehow. This even fails the heavily inclusionist general notability guidelines (i.e, multiple bits of non-trivial coverage grant notability). The second one is

2982:

incorrect definitions of terms become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide."" -that's not coverage of wikinfo, that's coverage of wikipedia. We could merge the article on wikinfo into one on

1751:

I would support a move to the Knowledge namespace. I don't have a problem with the Knowledge namespace being used for that purpose and the article could live a quiet and undisturbed life there. Seems like a sensible compromise to me.

2586:

There are tens of thousands of rural cities that have never been given nontrivial coverage in a third party reliable source. As for the rest of your points - we are talking in circles. 1) The source guidelines at WP:N establish

3065:"Look at this raw websearch" is almost always unhelpful. Looking at your scholar search turns up stuff we've seen and stuff that only mentions the URL. The book search turns up one of the later, and one which might be useful 2979: 2758: 1946:

What does that have to do with including a Knowledge article on it? There are lots of places you could theoretically go if you were annoyed with Knowledge... that doesn't mean we have to have an article on every one of them.

1291:

The only empty claims here are the notability claims of this subject. I'm an inclusionist in favor of keeping most things, but this fails any concept of notability whatsoever, and even only barely scrapes by verifiability.

318:

A cursory search on the subject suggests a lack of notability; no sources in mainstream news and only trivial coverage in the blogosphere. Most of the inline references don't mention the subject or *are* the subject.

2591:

conditions for notability, 2) there are other ways to establish notability besides coverage in 3rd party sources, 3) the non-source based arguments in the previous 6 AfD's convince me of the notability of this topic.

2454:

I wouldn't even require them to be added to the article to withdraw my nomination. Simply listing them here would be good enough for me. But it's pretty clear that no RS sources with non-trivial coverage exist.

2358:". This means that having nontrivial secondary source coverage guarantees notability, but the converse is not true - a lack of sources alone cannot override other arguments for notability. The same is true for 1004:

WP:WEB applies to sites we like, too. Arguing based on previous AFDs is pretty weak... just because the ballot box was stuffed before doesn't mean we have to keep electing the village idiot out of tradition.

570:

Well, first of all it is abusive to nominate an article again and again and again and again and again and again until finally the right set of people happen to show up and the vote works out in your favor.

648:

Very well, it seems that you are acting in good faith, despite the suspect circumstance. Here are a select set of reasons, culled from the previous AfD's, that demonstrate why I think it should be kept:

2664:, which isn't quite a city, but we'll run with it anyway. A search on Google Books turns up "A History of Ingersoll, Oklahoma," The Chronicles of Oklahoma. Vol. XXX, No. 1 (Spring, 1952), p. 129 and 1969:

are the biggest problems most new users have here, things which help conclude arguments more quickly in these areas are generally good. It is often easier to deflect energy than to neutralise it.

2546:

Now, if you want to turn the subjective and subtle issue of notability into a mechanical process of reference counting then that is fine, but the proper way to do that is by changing the policy.

675:

Keep per my belief that this is a historically important wiki. The Knowledge:Notability (web) is a guideline, not a suicide pact. (post originally by Yamaguchi先生 23:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

2636:

Evidence was provided near the top of the page, and you disputed whether the evidence is sufficient, which is your perogative. I do not wish to debate it further, both of our views are known.

1632:

per nom. Shii says it all really, and yes, it is less notable than Encyclopedia Dramatica. Also (and although this does not correlate with notability) it has an extremely low Alexa ranking.--

3221:

Consensus can change. To accuse Celarnor of WP:POINT violations when he is just completing a nomination started by someone who didnt know who to complete the nom is pretty bad faith of you.

493:. That said, I say delete. It's status as a fork of Knowledge has no notability value in and of itself, and we have a grand total of three sources. That doesn't strike me as notable enough. 2432:

That's what this exception is all about. By this point, sources would have been added to meet the notability guidelines if sources could be found. Conclusion: It can't readily be sourced.

1857:

I wish to announce that Economics Guy, in recognition of his spending cash in addition to his time for the advancement of knowledge for us all, has been duly awarded a "Lorenzo" a/k/a the

3234:

You're right; I misunderstood the chain of events here leading up to the nomination, as well as the relationship between the other nominations he filed shortly thereafter (and still, the

2997:- wikinfo is only there as part of a discussion of the problems with wikipedia and as a contrast to it, and is only give a few lines, not even a paragraph, in a long article on wikipedia. 3243:

notable, or that the standards for notability have changed. Without demonstrating something has changed, repeated AfDs are just a license to repeat the process until you get your way.

2362:. This article is notable for all the reasons above, and all the reasons in the previous 6 AfD's, which have not been sufficiently rebutted by those here voting "delete, fails WP:WEB". 250: 245: 240: 235: 230: 225: 857: 3171:, an argument to be avoided during XfDs, you haven't provided a keep rationale, let alone one that fits any speedy keep criteria, nor have you given us a reason why we should ignore 2783:

None of those say Wikinfo's concept is interesting... they just verify Wikinfo exists. There are sites that verify my blog exists... that doesn't mean we have an article on it. --

1568:

course the argument is "We didn't attract enough deletionists in the past," Then the AfD process is kind of exposed for what it is - a content deletion mechanism, at all costs. -

3131:

it is mentioned in coverage of wikipedia, wikis, and encyclopedia projects. Not enough to write an article about but enough to at least be mentioned in the relevant articles. --

2126:

Never heard of that site, but the nomination itself seems a little disruptive to me (as a "revenge" for AfD of ED article). However, I see less sources than ED has, so it's very

3167:. This is my first nomination ever. Those other two nominations are procedural nominations, not my own, and you should note that I !voted keep on both of them. Still, beyond 2350:

I am particularly distressed at statements like "Fails WP:WEB", that are so prevalent at AfD's these days. These statements fundamentally misconstrue the notability guidelines.

2756: 110: 2998: 2762: 1380:

they're at Wikinfo now.) Finally, WP:CANVAS urges "common sense" when applying this guideline, not the standard rigidity that these essays are often interpreted to require. -

2769:. Also I think AfD'd 6 times is a bit much (my first vote on it though). Given the problems we have here at WP, I am almost surprised that WP doesn't advertise Wikinfo.-- 1683:

into the Knowledge namespace. Not much in the way of independent coverage; the blind assumption of notability put forward by others here reflects a Knowledge-centric bias.

1343:

I see you're shocked, SHOCKED that there's solicited votes going on in AfD's. Wonder how everyone here found out about this? Not worth longwinded arguing the point here. -

1260:

but only guidelines, and actual policies that have been gang edited to defend rampant deletionism don't sway me, and I hope someday they stop swaying other editors here. -

2752:- It is notable, easily found a number of presented or published, third party papers that cite Wikinfo and its interesting concept to content and dispute resolution. e.g. 927:

every way you look at it. The cited sources are either self published or trivial per our usual standards. Non-trivial means non-trivial. It isn't exactly rocket science.

352:

This is indeed an important subject in the history of Knowledge. However, Knowledge is not required to explain its own subculture, as much as the amazingly comprehensive

2878:

It's all just too trivial. We can't write an article based off of mentions that it exists and it's a Knowledge fork. There has to be objective, substantive coverage.

1790: 311: 543:

previous AfD's. This is an abusive nomination, suspiciously made less than 2 hours after this article was mentioned at the contentious Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD.

1046:

A) it can't be speedy kept when there are valid delete !votes and B) consensus can change so assume good faith and give us a source showing non-trivial coverage.

2048:

Notability makes no such distinction. I don't buy it either. ED, which actually discusses chans and non-Knowledge material has been cited for such, whereas both

1650:

And I don't find the keep arguments very convincing here. It doesn't matter how many times something has been through AfD, look at the GNAA or Brian Peppers.--

1903:. I count only one source that provides significant coverage. (Oh, and if it matters - I !voted exactly the same way on ED, I don't think either of them pass 3091:. I was hoping that I could improve it to the point where we could keep it, but sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. Everything is just too trivial. 2239:

through search. 2-3 sentences in the middle of a text about Knowledge does not equal substantial coverage, through it may be enough to justify a mention in

2508:

isn't policy or even a guideline. It is, as you put it in regards to "Arguments to avoid during deletion discussions", an "essay pretending to policy".

2896:. Lack of reliable third party sources that have significant information on the subject, an issue which is at the root of our notability guidelines. -- 2034:

like ED I might add, which is just an attack site entirely dependent on Knowledge internal politics and therefore not notable outside of Knowledge-land.

40: 805:

The second ref doesn't look trivial, and nor does the 3rd ref though as theat is in german i cannot understand it to judge its non-triviality. Thanks,

1256:

here on Knowledge, which, ironically, this rather bizarre AfD process illustrates perfectly. Empty claims, urgings to read biased essays that are not

474:

I read the other AFDs a few minutes ago, and have looked through the previous AFDs, and say delete. We have three sources. One book: so far so good.

2710:, where we can say a lot just off the census material that every city in the first world has. Not only that, you miss part of the point; that the 1327: 868:) section. The coverage is a total of one paragraph of four sentences. It's too much of a stretch for us to interpret that as anything other than 220: 2833:

Apparently, we're allowed to change rules to advance the goal of Deletion. TheNautilus has provided secondary sources, and that is now deemed -

2819:

In your opinion... but in our actual notability guidelines, there is a requirement for non-trivial coverage, not just a mention of existance. --

1306: 1081:

6th nomination? Nominations again and again... Keep per all good arguments that were written in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th nomination. --

1466: 1096: 712:. I can't really make anything out of the fourth comment, since I don't really know what independent reliable sources he's talking about. 2611:. There's no objective evidence here. Just a few paltry mentions in articles about other subjects. Whatever way you look at, this fails 615: 507: 2162:

The real issue here seems to be with the terms "trivial" and "non-trivial". Perhaps we need to review and define what these terms mean

652:

It is notable not as a website, but as an open source project fork of a very notable project. Thus, WEB is irrelevant. (It is listed

3340: 2543:"fuzziness" is routinely used for more than just technical reasons (technical reasons such as the sources exist but can't be found). 2030:, it is a legitimate online encyclopedia with interest and use not necessarily related to Knowledge's internal politics. Very much 1703: 119: 2403:". Material unlikely to be challenged does not need to be cited (although it is still a good idea where possible). Additionally, 1997:

I wouldn't have a problem with that either. I only oppose Knowledge trying to control access to knowledge in a self-serving way.

149: 2537:

simply provides another way for web-based topics to be notable, and clarifies some other web-specific points (advertising, etc).

1771:- Abusive nomination and there is enough substantial secondary coverage by reliable independent sources to warrant inclusion. -- 2356:

If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources, that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable.

958:

Excellent idea. Whether or not it meets notability standards, it's useful for Wikipedians, so it would be an appropriate move.

573:

Secondly, it is abusive to create a nomination for one article for the purpose of affecting the outcome of another article AfD.

521:

none of the cited (neutral external) mention wikinfo other than in passing as a fork with a different philosphy - not notable.

17: 2914: 1416: 1364: 1252:

than just a copycat encyclopedia, and worthy of continued inclusion here. Also, an excellent alternate culture to the flawed

2276:

keep. For the record my opinion has not changed since I commented in the discussion which took place this time last year. --

1459:

Has enough sources to establish notability. This is an Otherstuffexists nom, as this all came out of the ED nom. Seriously,

1398:

to obtain, and most of us here have considerable familiarity with the project whether we choose to participate there or not.

2469:

via the arguments presented in this and the previous AfD's, I hold that Wikinfo is notable even though it lacks coverage.

3120: 2854:

is entirely defensible. I'm fairly inclusionist, but there's nothing in the sources to work from, besides bare mentions.--

2505: 2089:

And I see no arguments that address the concerns raised so it looks like this may not be over regardless of the outcome.

1350:

but it might result in a mini train wreck. Obviously users who don't contribute here aren't bound to en-wp policies like

3307: 3274: 3252: 3229: 3216: 3187: 3158: 3137: 3099: 3078: 3060: 3043: 3025: 3011: 2970: 2957: 2943: 2926: 2905: 2886: 2863: 2845: 2828: 2814: 2792: 2778: 2724: 2700: 2681: 2645: 2631: 2601: 2581: 2555: 2516: 2499: 2478: 2463: 2441: 2416: 2388: 2371: 2335: 2309: 2284: 2269: 2255: 2230: 2205: 2190: 2175: 2157: 2140: 2121: 2098: 2084: 2065: 2043: 2006: 2002: 1992: 1978: 1974: 1956: 1941: 1937: 1916: 1887: 1870: 1852: 1833: 1816: 1805: 1780: 1761: 1746: 1711: 1690: 1675: 1659: 1641: 1622: 1605: 1592: 1572: 1553: 1538: 1516: 1497: 1480: 1451: 1421: 1384: 1369: 1338: 1316: 1300: 1286: 1264: 1243: 1224: 1206: 1189: 1168: 1147: 1124: 1108: 1090: 1069: 1055: 1038: 1014: 996: 967: 953: 936: 915: 885: 851: 838: 823: 809: 800: 787: 778: 765: 734: 720: 694: 669: 643: 621: 596: 583: 565: 552: 529: 513: 464: 442: 417: 403: 389: 368: 344: 327: 86: 2841:- guideline is being rather strictly and incorrectly interpreted, as it is often by those who wish to simply delete - 1961:

It save time when sorting out real WP issues. Given that time is a limiting constraint for most people here, and that

1614:. Notability is determined by multiple pieces of independent coverage in reliable sources, which this doesn't have. 1406:

in good faith, it's just disappointing to see very reasonable (and intuitive) guidelines being neglected like this. —

864:

by Erik Möller 11.04.2005). The entire coverage of Wikiinfo is in the third paragraph under the "Vergabelte Content" (

479: 278: 273: 135: 2805:

Several papers, including academics, especially note its basis and concept in contrast to WP. That is sufficient.--

1113:

what good argument would they be? They certainly dont overcome the current lack of significant coverage required by

1838:

Here is what they are trying to pass off as non-trivial coverage from the The Journal of American History article:

1212: 709: 282: 1655: 1637: 108:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

3322: 3056: 3039: 3021: 2953: 2939: 2201: 2094: 1848: 1757: 1472: 1334: 1312: 1051: 981:, which is the guideline for such matters. Ned Scott makes a good suggestion - as an atlernative to deletion, a 932: 834: 65: 46: 3321:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3031: 2661: 1282: 1220: 1185: 609: 501: 265: 64:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

752:

Per the fact that of the previous multiple AFDs over the course of the last 12 months alone, all but one were

1651: 1633: 1394:

guidelines (which I think are very sensible), to engage in off-wiki canvassing without disclosing it on-wiki.

3006: 2921: 2766: 1998: 1983:

Then why keep it as an article? It could "deflect energy" just as effectively in the Knowledge namespace. --

1970: 1933: 1274: 1202: 1143: 1104: 394:

I would also be amenable to moving this out of article space to an appropriate place in Knowledge space. --

3235: 3197: 2668:

both having serious coverage on the topic, and plenty of casual mentions. Step two would be to look at the

2323:

for lack of sufficient substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, as noted umpteen times above.

1899:- regardless of the good-faith or otherwise of the nomination, this website simply doesn't seem to satisfy 1504:

Because it needs an objective analysis from editors to decide whether or not this can stay without meeting

3124: 3017: 2987: 2949: 2653: 2240: 2197: 2153: 2112:, especially as actually applied in recent AfDs. The cites don't give independent, non-trivial coverage.-- 2090: 1844: 1753: 1402: 1330: 1308: 1047: 928: 830: 353: 181: 2810: 2774: 2171: 2039: 1912: 1801: 1707: 1490: 663: 1180:

by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. I'm perplexed how this was kept so many times before.

3074: 3052: 3035: 2935: 2859: 2720: 2677: 2577: 2424: 2407:

does not care if the coverage is "trivial" or not, so long as it backs up the facts it is cited for.

2384: 2244: 2117: 2061: 1924:: Very useful as a pressure valve in heated debates when people want unsourced opinions here - as in 1469: 1270: 165: 139: 2619:, which only require a few sources for notability and nothing else. This subject doesn't even have 2196:

cover the subject in some detail to be non-trivial. I'm just not seeing that anywhere in this case.

1859:

Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching Citation of the Monied and Munificent Order of Wikipedian Patrons of Civilization

3303: 3135: 2711: 2688: 2669: 2657: 2294: 2226: 1908: 1883: 1687: 1588: 1447: 1278: 1216: 1181: 1065: 1034: 946: 603: 495: 124: 3272: 3185: 3168: 3097: 3001: 2916: 2884: 2824: 2788: 2629: 2514: 2497: 2461: 2307: 2186: 1988: 1952: 1831: 1776: 1620: 1514: 1298: 1198: 1010: 761: 753: 718: 641: 462: 342: 325: 171: 102: 3048: 2995: 2753: 1702:

per various comments above (rather blatantly in fact). All sources are only a passing mention.

3225: 2707: 2437: 2149: 2080: 1866: 1742: 1728:. Every other argument amounts smoke blowing, contrary to AfD deletion policy as described at 1601: 1549: 1239: 1120: 1086: 963: 881: 819: 796: 774: 705: 701: 653: 592: 561: 525: 424: 399: 385: 58:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

2148:- seems not notable enough based on notability criteria used for afd's of other websites. -- 1821:

If you can point to two non-trivial, secondary reliable sources, that would mean this passed

3088: 2901: 2806: 2770: 2167: 2035: 1797: 1390: 1351: 949:. Notable or not, it's probably useful information to document somewhere on the project. -- 657: 3201: 3146: 3070: 2855: 2716: 2673: 2573: 2380: 2113: 2057: 413:

Good article on an interesting subject, I am baffled as to why it would be afd'd. Thanks,

81: 3016:

The last article linked to by TheNautilus does not contain a single mention of Wikinfo.

1878:(assuming that the published version of the second article includes the Wikinfo stuff). 3299: 3248: 3212: 3193: 3154: 3132: 3083:

I looked through all of that prior to nominating this, per the guidelines set forth in

2696: 2641: 2597: 2551: 2474: 2412: 2367: 2326: 2222: 1962: 1879: 1841:

become multiple incompetences, propagated to millions of potential readers world-wide."

1729: 1684: 1584: 1475: 1442: 1389:

Yes, I arrived here via a link on another AfD; no that's not inappropriate canvassing.

1061: 1030: 991: 950: 806: 784: 730: 690: 579: 548: 483: 439: 431: 414: 365: 3334: 3267: 3259: 3180: 3176: 3164: 3092: 3084: 2879: 2820: 2784: 2624: 2612: 2534: 2530: 2509: 2492: 2488: 2456: 2359: 2320: 2302: 2218: 2182: 2109: 2049: 2027: 1984: 1948: 1904: 1826: 1772: 1720: 1699: 1615: 1534: 1509: 1460: 1407: 1376: 1355: 1293: 1177: 1164: 1156: 1135: 1114: 1006: 978: 924: 873: 757: 713: 636: 632: 487: 457: 377: 358: 337: 320: 861: 3222: 3128: 2967: 2842: 2433: 2298: 2278: 2266: 2249: 2137: 2076: 1900: 1862: 1813: 1738: 1671:. Just enough coverage to indicate notability. Those 404s need to be fixed though! 1598: 1569: 1545: 1494: 1381: 1344: 1261: 1235: 1117: 1082: 959: 909: 877: 848: 816: 793: 771: 589: 558: 522: 482:: this is good. Three sources, for one site, but no other notability? The essay at 453: 395: 381: 269: 199: 187: 155: 601:

Um... the ED article is up at AFD five times, some article have gone 10+ times...

299: 134:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

3263: 3172: 2934:- non-trivial mentions in several published academic papers makes this notable. 2897: 2851: 2616: 2607: 2565: 2561: 2526: 2404: 2393: 2376: 2351: 2023: 1966: 1822: 1611: 1505: 1139: 1100: 1029:

AfDs. This does seem a bit like "keep trying until I get the result I want"...

475: 449: 78: 2656:, so if these undocumented cities exist, I should have seen them. Let's take 1843:

It's not about Wikinfo - it's about Knowledge! Oh, and I want my money back!

3266:. The problem is, there isn't any non-trivial independent of the subject. 3244: 3208: 3150: 2692: 2637: 2593: 2547: 2470: 2408: 2363: 2166:

according to Knowledge policy, and then this discussion can get somewhere.--

1672: 986: 783:

Why should anyone have to respond to claims, especially empty ones. Thanks,

726: 686: 575: 544: 428: 362: 656:

as one of the 43 best wikis (not that it really is)). (post originally by

2247:. This is nothing like Conservapedia, which has loads of press coverage. 1529: 1160: 1159:. Are we keeping this because it was started by a well-respected editor? 631:

this material before. I didn't even know what it was until now. Please

843:

This is the first time I've heard the argument that a source must be in

2913:

no notability, only one or two google news hits, and they're in German.

2425:

Knowledge: Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines

2053: 1597:

Luckily we don't determine notability by counting google hits isnt it.

261: 92: 3127:. Although I am unable to find substantial coverage about Wikinfo in 1583:

obvious comparison for those interested in tracing Wiki developments.

792:

None of those sources are non-trivial. Care to point out one that is?

380:. Would be happy to reconsider if additional references were added. -- 361:. It is cited in scholarly articles only as an offshoot of Knowledge. 3030:

There are a number of additional academic references returned in a

2399:

Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations

588:

Want to back up that bad faith assertion with a bit of evidence?

3315:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2983: 376:

Cited sources do not seem to denote this subject as adequately

2132: 1461:

do we only want to delete this because it criticises Knowledge

1329:

they are now asking former Wikipedians to come here and vote.

97: 25: 1197:

many Knowledge articles are about far less notable subjects.

756:

keeps. Do we need to keep revisiting this every few months?

491: 128:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 1930:

That is what Wikinfo is for - and look how popular that is

1926:

Write a Wikinfo article if you want your opinion published

1277:

in fact is policy which this article fails miserably at.

2289:

It hasn't gotten worse. The problem is that it hasn't

306: 295: 291: 287: 2487:

Inherent notability doesn't exist for web sites. See

2075:

I see no consensus for deletion in this discussion. --

907:

Not substantially different from prior versions kept.

3123:

and redirect, also some content could be merged into

2672:, which has a hundred years of records on the city.-- 2401:, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. 1273:

is a widely accepted and longstanding guideline, and

1155:

sources have not been brought to the table, so fails

860:(bumpy, but readable) of the German-language source ( 2837:- not good enough? I believe the Notoriety - I mean 2615:, and even fails the incredibly broad and including 484:

http://reagle.org/joseph/2004/agree/wikip-agree.html

3204:

problems (and I wasn't the only one to sniff them).

2660:, because it has a population of 18, IIRC. It's an 1508:without the influence of ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT. 770:Got an answer to the claims of lack of notability. 725:Ahh yes, WP:EPTBP (Essay Pretending to be Policy) 486:only mentions it trivially, so doesn't count, and 2763:Viable Wikis: Struggle for Life in the Wikisphere 68:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3325:). No further edits should be made to this page. 2966:They were just cited, and are valid mentions. - 2056:are "we're not Knowledge, which really sucks!"-- 2396:requires nothing of the sort. It requires that 1463:? Don't we have more dignity than that? I'm an 3163:Please note that this user doesn't seem to be 2301:that indicate the notability of the subject. 1544:this AfD does not seem unreasonable to me. -- 251:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (7th nomination) 246:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination) 241:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (5th nomination) 236:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (4th nomination) 231:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (3rd nomination) 226:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (2nd nomination) 1791:list of Websites-related deletion discussions 148:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 118:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has 8: 2533:cannot be used to "remove" it's notability. 1726:a brief summary of the nature of the content 870:a brief summary of the nature of the content 490:he doesn't appear to be particularly notable 1354:, but this seems plainly unconstructive. — 1099:for why this argument is not really valid. 452:guidelines. Very little to no coverage in 3069:someone actually looked at a paper copy.-- 2525:If a topic meets notability standards per 847:in order to confer so-called notabiliy. - 122:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 2948:And what academic papers would these be? 1435:per lack of reliable independent sources 1789:: This debate has been included in the 142:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 218: 45:For an explanation of the process, see 2986:, or mention that this is its view at 2964:TheNautilus (talk) 11:00, 21 May 2008. 2608:Notability requires objective evidence 876:'s relevant definition of "trivial". 704:, and the third is something between 7: 2423:I think this counters ZOOr's point: 2297:, and there still isn't anything in 3200:was clearly absurd, and smelled of 3194:Assume the assumption of good faith 1825:and I'll withdraw this right now. 216: 1861:, as so sported on his user page. 1025:for reasons given in the previous 24: 2560:I believe you're misinterpreting 2221:as discussed above, ad nauseum. 3258:subject asserted notability per 1737:interest to Wikipedians belong. 1176:. Completely and utterly fails 557:How is that in any way abusive? 478:'s article: so far so good. The 101: 29: 41:deletion review on 2008 July 27 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1097:WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED 1: 3121:Internet encyclopedia project 2687:have much less coverage than 2652:Really? Where? I've lived in 2617:general notability guidelines 221:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo 138:on the part of others and to 2589:sufficient but not necessary 1610:You probably want to review 2977:Journal of American History 2759:Journal of American History 480:Journal of American History 3357: 2767:perhaps in this paper too 829:ref short of notability. 670:23:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 47:Knowledge:Deletion review 3341:Pages at deletion review 3318:Please do not modify it. 3308:07:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 3275:00:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 3253:00:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 3230:23:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3217:23:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3188:18:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3159:18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3138:17:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3100:17:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3079:17:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3061:16:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3044:16:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3026:16:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 3012:15:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2971:15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2958:14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2944:14:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2927:13:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2906:13:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2887:17:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2864:16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2846:15:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2829:13:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2815:13:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2793:12:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2779:11:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2725:10:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 2701:10:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 2682:13:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2662:unincorporated community 2646:10:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 2632:04:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2602:03:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2582:02:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2556:02:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2517:02:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2500:02:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2479:01:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2464:01:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2442:01:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC) 2417:22:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 2389:22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 2372:22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 2336:19:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 2310:17:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 2285:14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 2270:14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 2256:10:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 2231:22:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 2206:15:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 2191:14:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 2176:13:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 2158:03:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 2141:21:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2122:18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2099:17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2085:17:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2066:18:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2044:16:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 2007:19:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1993:18:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1979:18:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1957:13:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1942:08:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1917:00:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1888:12:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1871:19:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1853:02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1834:02:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1817:02:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1806:00:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1781:23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1762:15:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1747:17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1712:14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1691:12:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1676:12:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1660:10:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1642:10:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1623:08:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1606:05:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1593:05:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1573:02:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC) 1554:02:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1539:02:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1517:02:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1498:01:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1481:00:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1452:23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1422:05:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1385:00:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 1370:22:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1339:17:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1317:18:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1301:18:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1287:17:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1265:17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1244:17:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1225:17:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1207:17:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1190:17:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1169:15:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1148:14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1125:14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1109:14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1091:14:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1070:22:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1056:13:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1039:13:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 1015:13:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 997:10:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 968:17:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 954:04:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 937:03:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 916:03:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 886:19:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 852:17:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 839:17:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 824:14:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 810:14:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 801:05:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 788:02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 779:02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 766:02:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 735:02:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 721:02:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 695:02:18, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 644:02:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 622:02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 597:01:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 584:01:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 566:01:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 553:01:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 530:01:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 514:01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 465:01:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 443:01:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 418:01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 404:17:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC) 390:01:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 369:01:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 345:04:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 328:01:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC) 87:14:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC) 61:Please do not modify it. 2850:I think our reading of 2666:Ghost Towns of Oklahoma 2342:artibrary section break 1730:WP:DGFA#Rough Consensus 1275:Knowledge:Verifiability 434:01:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC 180:; accounts blocked for 150:single-purpose accounts 120:policies and guidelines 3198:One of your other AfDs 3125:Criticism of Knowledge 2988:criticism of wikipedia 2654:Woods County, Oklahoma 2241:Criticism of Knowledge 1403:Encyclopedia Dramatica 923:per Shii above. Fails 354:Criticism of Knowledge 215:AfDs for this article: 3173:notability guidelines 3032:Google Scholar search 2990:. The same with the 1823:notability guidelines 1612:notability guidelines 1506:notability guidelines 1254:Deletionist mentality 1211:Recommended reading: 983:move to project space 862:"Der Stein der Wikis" 2295:consensus can change 2245:History of Knowledge 1271:Knowledge:Notability 985:would be agreeable. 858:a Google translation 357:right Wikinfo fails 3165:assuming good faith 2712:Alva Review-Courier 2689:Ingersoll, Oklahoma 2670:Alva Review-Courier 2658:Ingersoll, Oklahoma 2506:inherent notability 1213:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS 947:Knowledge:Semapedia 132:by counting votes. 111:not a majority vote 3119:some content into 1999:Stephen B Streater 1971:Stephen B Streater 1934:Stephen B Streater 1719:It's very simple. 1652:AnonymousUser12345 1634:AnonymousUser12345 866:Vergabelte Inhalte 3227: 2975:One of the refs, 2708:Amorita, Oklahoma 2334: 1808: 1794: 1603: 1122: 821: 798: 776: 633:assume good faith 594: 563: 527: 213: 212: 209: 136:assume good faith 53: 52: 39:was subject to a 3348: 3320: 3226: 3129:reliable sources 2333: 2331: 2324: 2299:reliable sources 1795: 1785: 1602: 1450: 1412: 1360: 1305:Solicitated vote 1121: 912: 820: 797: 775: 710:THISNUMBERISHUGE 620: 618: 612: 606: 593: 562: 526: 512: 510: 504: 498: 454:reliable sources 448:It doesn't meet 309: 303: 285: 207: 195: 179: 163: 144: 114:, but instead a 105: 98: 84: 73:The result was 63: 33: 32: 26: 3356: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3323:deletion review 3316: 3179:in this case. 2835:in your opinion 2344: 2327: 2325: 2133:Have a nice day 1441: 1419: 1408: 1367: 1356: 910: 616: 610: 604: 602: 574: 508: 502: 496: 494: 305: 276: 260: 257: 255: 197: 185: 169: 153: 140:sign your posts 96: 82: 66:deletion review 59: 37:This discussion 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3354: 3352: 3344: 3343: 3333: 3332: 3328: 3327: 3311: 3310: 3293: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3140: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3081: 3028: 2962:Look above at 2929: 2908: 2890: 2889: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2569: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2520: 2519: 2502: 2482: 2481: 2466: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2343: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2313: 2312: 2287: 2259: 2258: 2233: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2193: 2143: 2124: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1919: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1819: 1783: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1714: 1693: 1678: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1645: 1644: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1608: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1556: 1520: 1519: 1501: 1500: 1491:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1483: 1454: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1415: 1399: 1395: 1363: 1347: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1303: 1289: 1279:Coccyx Bloccyx 1246: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1217:Coccyx Bloccyx 1192: 1182:Coccyx Bloccyx 1171: 1150: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1111: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1017: 999: 972: 971: 970: 939: 918: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 841: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 684: 680: 676: 673: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 605:Lawrence Cohen 599: 572: 533: 532: 516: 497:Lawrence Cohen 468: 467: 446: 435: 421: 420: 408: 407: 406: 371: 347: 316: 315: 256: 254: 253: 248: 243: 238: 233: 228: 223: 217: 214: 211: 210: 106: 95: 90: 71: 70: 54: 51: 50: 44: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3353: 3342: 3339: 3338: 3336: 3326: 3324: 3319: 3313: 3312: 3309: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3294: 3291: 3288: 3276: 3273: 3271: 3270: 3265: 3261: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3237: 3233: 3232: 3231: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3205: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3190: 3189: 3186: 3184: 3183: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3141: 3139: 3136: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3115: 3101: 3098: 3096: 3095: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3053:Reggie Perrin 3050: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3036:Reggie Perrin 3033: 3029: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3010: 3009: 3005: 3004: 2999: 2996: 2993: 2989: 2985: 2980: 2978: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2936:Reggie Perrin 2933: 2930: 2928: 2925: 2924: 2920: 2919: 2915: 2912: 2911:strong delete 2909: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2892: 2891: 2888: 2885: 2883: 2882: 2877: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2757: 2754: 2751: 2748: 2747: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2630: 2628: 2627: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2590: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2570: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2558: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2518: 2515: 2513: 2512: 2507: 2503: 2501: 2498: 2496: 2495: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2465: 2462: 2460: 2459: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2400: 2395: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2346: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2332: 2330: 2322: 2318: 2315: 2314: 2311: 2308: 2306: 2305: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291:gotten better 2288: 2286: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2268: 2263: 2257: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2246: 2242: 2237: 2234: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2194: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2144: 2142: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2129: 2125: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2050:Conservapedia 2047: 2046: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2028:Conservapedia 2025: 2022:. Much like 2021: 2018: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1920: 1918: 1914: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1895: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1832: 1830: 1829: 1824: 1820: 1818: 1815: 1810: 1809: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1735: 1731: 1727: 1722: 1718: 1715: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1677: 1674: 1670: 1667: 1666: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1619: 1618: 1613: 1609: 1607: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1581: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1566: 1562: 1557: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1525: 1522: 1521: 1518: 1515: 1513: 1512: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1487: 1484: 1482: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1474: 1471: 1468: 1462: 1458: 1455: 1453: 1449: 1446: 1445: 1438: 1434: 1431: 1423: 1418: 1413: 1411: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1378: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1366: 1361: 1359: 1353: 1348: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1325: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1307: 1304: 1302: 1299: 1297: 1296: 1290: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1250: 1247: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1199:Barbara Shack 1196: 1193: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1172: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1151: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1130: 1126: 1123: 1119: 1116: 1112: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1077: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1022: 1018: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1003: 1000: 998: 995: 994: 990: 989: 984: 980: 976: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 956: 955: 952: 948: 943: 940: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 919: 917: 914: 913: 906: 903: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 854: 853: 850: 846: 842: 840: 836: 832: 827: 826: 825: 822: 818: 813: 812: 811: 808: 804: 803: 802: 799: 795: 791: 790: 789: 786: 782: 781: 780: 777: 773: 769: 768: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 748: 736: 732: 728: 724: 723: 722: 719: 717: 716: 711: 707: 703: 698: 697: 696: 692: 688: 685: 681: 677: 674: 671: 668: 666: 662: 660: 655: 651: 650: 647: 646: 645: 642: 640: 639: 634: 629: 623: 619: 613: 607: 600: 598: 595: 591: 587: 586: 585: 581: 577: 569: 568: 567: 564: 560: 556: 555: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 535: 534: 531: 528: 524: 520: 517: 515: 511: 505: 499: 492: 489: 488:Joseph Reagle 485: 481: 477: 473: 470: 469: 466: 463: 461: 460: 455: 451: 447: 444: 441: 436: 433: 430: 426: 423: 422: 419: 416: 412: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 392: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 372: 370: 367: 364: 360: 355: 351: 348: 346: 343: 341: 340: 335: 332: 331: 330: 329: 326: 324: 323: 313: 308: 301: 297: 293: 289: 284: 280: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 258: 252: 249: 247: 244: 242: 239: 237: 234: 232: 229: 227: 224: 222: 219: 205: 201: 193: 189: 183: 177: 173: 167: 161: 157: 151: 147: 143: 141: 137: 131: 127: 126: 121: 117: 113: 112: 107: 104: 100: 99: 94: 91: 89: 88: 85: 80: 76: 69: 67: 62: 56: 55: 48: 42: 38: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3317: 3314: 3295: 3289: 3268: 3240: 3192: 3181: 3142: 3116: 3093: 3066: 3049:Goolge Books 3018:EconomicsGuy 3007: 3002: 2991: 2976: 2963: 2950:EconomicsGuy 2931: 2922: 2917: 2910: 2893: 2880: 2838: 2834: 2749: 2665: 2625: 2620: 2606: 2588: 2510: 2493: 2457: 2428: 2398: 2397: 2355: 2347: 2328: 2319:Still fails 2316: 2303: 2290: 2279: 2277: 2261: 2260: 2250: 2248: 2235: 2214: 2198:EconomicsGuy 2163: 2150:Rocksanddirt 2145: 2131: 2127: 2105: 2091:EconomicsGuy 2072: 2031: 2019: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1896: 1858: 1845:EconomicsGuy 1839: 1827: 1786: 1768: 1754:EconomicsGuy 1733: 1725: 1716: 1695: 1680: 1668: 1629: 1616: 1579: 1564: 1560: 1528: 1523: 1510: 1485: 1465: 1464: 1456: 1443: 1436: 1432: 1409: 1357: 1331:EconomicsGuy 1323: 1309:EconomicsGuy 1294: 1257: 1253: 1248: 1231: 1194: 1173: 1152: 1131: 1078: 1048:EconomicsGuy 1043: 1026: 1020: 1019: 1001: 992: 987: 982: 974: 941: 929:EconomicsGuy 920: 908: 904: 869: 865: 844: 831:EconomicsGuy 749: 714: 664: 658: 637: 540: 536: 518: 471: 458: 410: 373: 349: 338: 333: 321: 317: 203: 191: 182:sockpuppetry 175: 164:; suspected 159: 145: 133: 129: 123: 115: 109: 74: 72: 60: 57: 36: 3290:Weak delete 3143:Speedy keep 3051:] as well. 2807:TheNautilus 2771:TheNautilus 2168:AaronCarson 2128:weak delete 2036:KleenupKrew 2024:Citizendium 1798:Fabrictramp 1704:78.86.18.55 1580:Strong Keep 1457:Strong Keep 1249:Strong Keep 1095:Please see 1079:Strong keep 1023:Strong keep 754:WP:SNOWBALL 537:Speedy Keep 476:Erik Moller 411:Strong keep 336:, as nom. 3071:Prosfilaes 2856:Prosfilaes 2839:notability 2717:Prosfilaes 2674:Prosfilaes 2574:Prosfilaes 2381:Prosfilaes 2329:Sandstein 2114:Prosfilaes 2058:Prosfilaes 450:notability 425:WP:ILIKEIT 116:discussion 3300:Everyking 3241:no longer 3236:other AfD 3207:keeping. 3133:Snigbrook 2992:Ambiguity 2572:cities.-- 2354:states, " 2223:(jarbarf) 2164:precisely 1880:Klausness 1685:Mackensen 1585:Jim Bough 1391:WP:CANVAS 1352:WP:CANVAS 1062:Klausness 1031:Klausness 951:Ned Scott 807:SqueakBox 785:SqueakBox 440:SqueakBox 415:SqueakBox 172:canvassed 166:canvassed 125:consensus 3335:Category 3269:Celarnor 3202:WP:POINT 3182:Celarnor 3169:NOTAGAIN 3094:Celarnor 2994:article 2881:Celarnor 2821:Rividian 2785:Rividian 2715:claim.-- 2626:Celarnor 2511:Celarnor 2494:Celarnor 2458:Celarnor 2304:Celarnor 2217:; fails 2183:Rividian 2108:; fails 1985:Rividian 1949:Rividian 1909:Terraxos 1828:Celarnor 1773:Oakshade 1617:Celarnor 1511:Celarnor 1410:xDanielx 1358:xDanielx 1326:Per this 1295:Celarnor 1269:Right. 1236:*Dan T.* 1134:, fails 1007:Rividian 977:, fails 758:23skidoo 715:Celarnor 638:Celarnor 539:Per the 459:Celarnor 339:Celarnor 322:Celarnor 312:View log 204:username 198:{{subst: 192:username 186:{{subst: 176:username 170:{{subst: 160:username 154:{{subst: 3223:Viridae 2968:Nhprman 2843:Nhprman 2529:, then 2434:Noroton 2348:Comment 2317:Delete. 2280:Hut 8.5 2267:Nhprman 2262:Comment 2251:Hut 8.5 2138:Running 2077:Dezidor 2073:Comment 2054:Wikinfo 1963:WP:NPOV 1863:Noroton 1814:Nhprman 1739:Noroton 1599:Viridae 1570:Nhprman 1546:ElKevbo 1495:Nhprman 1486:Comment 1401:If the 1382:Nhprman 1345:Nhprman 1324:Comment 1262:Nhprman 1232:Comment 1118:Viridae 1083:Dezidor 1044:Comment 960:Noroton 942:Comment 911:MBisanz 878:Noroton 856:Here's 849:Nhprman 845:English 817:Viridae 794:Viridae 772:Viridae 706:ILIKEIT 702:ILIKEIT 590:Viridae 559:Viridae 523:Viridae 396:ElKevbo 382:ElKevbo 378:notable 279:protect 274:history 262:Wikinfo 168:users: 93:Wikinfo 3296:Delete 3147:pointy 3089:BEFORE 3008:Parkin 3003:Sticky 2923:Parkin 2918:Sticky 2898:SCZenz 2894:Delete 2535:WP:WEB 2531:WP:WEB 2504:Also, 2360:WP:WEB 2321:WP:WEB 2236:Delete 2219:WP:WEB 2215:Delete 2146:delete 2110:WP:WEB 2106:Delete 1905:WP:WEB 1897:Delete 1721:WP:WEB 1717:Delete 1700:WP:WEB 1698:Fails 1696:Delete 1688:(talk) 1630:Delete 1467:Editor 1448:scribe 1433:Delete 1377:WP:AGF 1258:policy 1178:WP:WEB 1174:Delete 1157:WP:WEB 1153:Delete 1140:Stifle 1136:WP:WEB 1132:Delete 1115:WP:WEB 1101:Stifle 1021:Speedy 1002:Delete 979:WP:WEB 975:Delete 925:WP:WEB 921:Delete 874:WP:WEB 683:(UTC)) 519:Delete 472:Delete 432:(tock) 374:Delete 366:(tock) 359:WP:WEB 350:Delete 334:Delete 307:delete 283:delete 75:Delete 3117:Merge 1901:WP:RS 1559:note 1437:about 661:roken 310:) – ( 300:views 292:watch 288:links 146:Note: 16:< 3304:talk 3262:and 3249:talk 3245:Xihr 3213:talk 3209:Xihr 3175:and 3155:talk 3151:Xihr 3087:and 3075:talk 3057:talk 3040:talk 3022:talk 2984:wiki 2954:talk 2940:talk 2932:Keep 2902:talk 2860:talk 2852:WP:N 2825:talk 2811:talk 2789:talk 2775:talk 2750:Keep 2721:talk 2697:talk 2693:Z00r 2678:talk 2642:talk 2638:Z00r 2621:that 2598:talk 2594:Z00r 2578:talk 2566:WP:N 2562:WP:N 2552:talk 2548:Z00r 2527:WP:N 2475:talk 2471:Z00r 2438:talk 2413:talk 2409:Z00r 2405:WP:V 2394:WP:V 2385:talk 2377:WP:V 2368:talk 2364:Z00r 2352:WP:N 2227:talk 2202:talk 2187:talk 2172:talk 2154:talk 2118:talk 2095:talk 2081:talk 2062:talk 2052:and 2040:talk 2026:and 2020:Keep 2003:talk 1989:talk 1975:talk 1967:WP:V 1965:and 1953:talk 1938:talk 1922:Keep 1913:talk 1884:talk 1867:talk 1849:talk 1802:talk 1787:Note 1777:talk 1769:Keep 1758:talk 1743:talk 1708:talk 1681:Move 1673:Bill 1669:Keep 1656:talk 1638:talk 1589:talk 1563:and 1550:talk 1535:talk 1524:Keep 1493:. - 1476:wiki 1335:talk 1313:talk 1283:talk 1240:talk 1221:talk 1203:talk 1195:Keep 1186:talk 1165:talk 1144:talk 1105:talk 1087:talk 1066:talk 1052:talk 1035:talk 1027:five 1011:talk 988:Neıl 964:talk 933:talk 905:Keep 882:talk 835:talk 762:talk 750:Keep 731:talk 727:Z00r 708:and 691:talk 687:Z00r 667:egue 654:here 580:talk 576:Z00r 549:talk 545:Z00r 429:Shii 400:talk 386:talk 363:Shii 296:logs 270:talk 266:edit 79:Wily 3260:WEB 3196:. 3177:WEB 3085:DEL 2613:WEB 2491:. 2489:WEB 2430:be. 2243:or 1928:or 1796:-- 1793:. 1734:can 1565:how 1561:why 1530:DGG 1473:the 1444:WjB 1215:. 1161:EJF 635:. 456:. 427:?! 200:csp 196:or 188:csm 156:spa 130:not 3337:: 3306:) 3251:) 3215:) 3157:) 3149:. 3077:) 3067:if 3059:) 3042:) 3034:. 3024:) 2956:) 2942:) 2904:) 2862:) 2827:) 2813:) 2791:) 2777:) 2765:, 2761:, 2755:, 2723:) 2699:) 2680:) 2644:) 2600:) 2580:) 2554:) 2477:) 2440:) 2427:: 2415:) 2387:) 2370:) 2293:, 2229:) 2204:) 2189:) 2174:) 2156:) 2136:. 2130:-- 2120:) 2097:) 2083:) 2064:) 2042:) 2032:un 2005:) 1991:) 1977:) 1955:) 1947:-- 1940:) 1932:. 1915:) 1907:.) 1886:) 1869:) 1851:) 1804:) 1779:) 1760:) 1745:) 1710:) 1658:) 1640:) 1591:) 1552:) 1537:) 1470:of 1420:\ 1368:\ 1337:) 1315:) 1285:) 1242:) 1223:) 1205:) 1188:) 1167:) 1146:) 1138:. 1107:) 1089:) 1068:) 1054:) 1037:) 1013:) 1005:-- 966:) 935:) 884:) 872:, 837:) 764:) 733:) 693:) 608:§ 582:) 551:) 500:§ 402:) 388:) 298:| 294:| 290:| 286:| 281:| 277:| 272:| 268:| 206:}} 194:}} 184:: 178:}} 162:}} 152:: 43:. 3302:( 3264:N 3247:( 3211:( 3153:( 3073:( 3055:( 3038:( 3020:( 2952:( 2938:( 2900:( 2858:( 2823:( 2809:( 2787:( 2773:( 2719:( 2695:( 2676:( 2640:( 2596:( 2576:( 2568:. 2550:( 2473:( 2436:( 2411:( 2383:( 2366:( 2225:( 2200:( 2185:( 2170:( 2152:( 2116:( 2093:( 2079:( 2060:( 2038:( 2001:( 1987:( 1973:( 1951:( 1936:( 1911:( 1882:( 1865:( 1847:( 1800:( 1775:( 1756:( 1741:( 1706:( 1654:( 1636:( 1587:( 1548:( 1533:( 1417:C 1414:/ 1365:C 1362:/ 1333:( 1311:( 1281:( 1238:( 1219:( 1201:( 1184:( 1163:( 1142:( 1103:( 1085:( 1064:( 1050:( 1033:( 1009:( 993:☎ 962:( 931:( 880:( 833:( 760:( 729:( 689:( 672:) 665:S 659:B 617:e 614:/ 611:t 578:( 547:( 541:6 509:e 506:/ 503:t 445:. 398:( 384:( 314:) 304:( 302:) 264:( 208:. 202:| 190:| 174:| 158:| 83:D 49:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Wikinfo (6th nomination) - Knowledge

Index